Mikey152

Important is relative... Hollins, Knox, Anderson and Coleman dictates coverage just as much as a package with Cooper does, just in a different way. Put Cooper in for Hollins and it doesn't work as well. This was the whole point. All the receivers play a role on this team. Cooper didn't change that, he just majorly upgraded their weakest role player. Let me put it another way. Having a guy that can punish man coverage is a a weapon that helps the offense. Forcing the ball to said player to keep him happy or not having other options when he is covered/hurt holds a team back. That's really it. I didn't think Samuel could be 2020 Diggs, but I thought he could be second half of last year Diggs and the other guys got better. So now Cooper is second half of last year Diggs (without the crazy) and the rest of the guys are better and the offense is great.

Meh, depends on the look. Against man, probably. Against zone? Unlikely. Again, what you are describing is an important player...but I can tell you that I think they play better if Cooper is out than if Shakir is. I also think I'd take 2024 Hollins and Coleman over 2023 Davis and Diggs. Really, it was some combination of Samuel/MVS/Claypool et al, but yes. I think I (and the Bills) thought they could burn an aggressive defense with Samuel and MVS. Clearly that was wrong. But by the same token, we WERE right about something that seems to get lost in making that point. The idea was a good one, they just signed the wrong guy. Clearly this everybody eats philosophy has merit, and it really isn't made for a "true" #1 that commands 100+ targets either. I don't think Diggs would help like Cooper does, for example. Same threat, different attitude breaks the offense in a different way. And yes, Mack doesn't dictate coverage. But he does improve the run game and the RAC game significantly. It is not a coincidence that we have more long YAC and rushing plays this season. Downfield blocking is a big part of that.

Cooper was an indictment on Samuel and MVS, to a lesser extent..not the WR room or offensive philosophy. I think this would have been a very different thread if someone had said "This offense could work, but they're really gonna struggle against pressure man looks because CS and MVS aren't good enough there and Coleman is too young" Instead, most of what we saw in this thread was you need a #1 WR that gets 100 targets and 1000 yards to be successful.

I sort of a agree and sort of don't. I do think that Cooper plays an important role on the team, and raises the floor. But I don't think he is the go to guy on this offense. I'm not even sure he is the second or third guy. But that's just it...that don't really play like that anymore. All 5 skill guys are that guy in the right circumstances, and that's what makes them hard to defend.

Yes, indirect correlation...I get it, and I even agree. His presence keeps teams honest and lets Shakir operate against more zone coverage. That was likely Samuel's role and why most of Amari's snaps correlate to CS and not Keon, Mack or Khalil. The reason I find it amusing isn't because I think you are wrong...it's because that was the same argument for why guys like Mack Hollins are more valuable than their stats. The key is balance.

I think we are arguing different things. they can be deeper than last year without Cooper and better this year with him...those two things aren't mutually exclusive. I have definitely never said Amari Cooper makes us worse. Clearly he helps. But he isn't the #1 receiver on this team. He plays a role, and one that they clearly had a gap at thanks to the epic fail that was Curtis Samuel so far this season. I really hope it is his injuries.

How's this for a stat... The Bills have won every game where Khalil Shakir led the team in targets, and they have scored 30 in every game where he was first or second in targets (whole team, not just WR). The Bills have lost every game where Amari Cooper led the team in targets. They scored 30 nine times when he wasn't first or second in targets.

Cooper has played in 6 games...They have scored 30 in 11. Amari Cooper has outsnapped Mack Hollins in one game since he became a Bill...Week 8. That also happens to be the week Curtis Samuel missed. He was supposed to be their man beater, but for whatever reason it has failed, so they brought in a replacement. Is it good that with Cooper, the Bills have a guy that can win 1 on 1? Sure. That is a valuable skill and makes their offense harder to play against. But it isn't THE REASON it is hard to play against...if it was, Cooper would get way more snaps and targets. Cooper keeps teams honest, he doesn't make it go. Clearly I was wrong when I thought the Bills had a guy like that on the roster in MVS/Claypool/Samuel. They all failed to be that guy and I am glad Amari is on the team. But lets not get it twisted...he is an important piece, but not as important as the other pieces.

Serious question... Lets say you're right, and despite his limited snaps and targets, Cooper is having an impact on the passing game indirectly. Why was he 4th in snaps at WR the last two weeks, if he is truly a #1 WR and that impactful? What other #1 is 4th in snaps on their team? And what about the reverse? Do you not think that Hollins and Coleman are having similar impacts on the running game and Josh's efficiency? There is a reason they get more snaps than Cooper, and it isn't because they are better at getting open. If the only thing that mattered was the ability to get open, teams would play 5 WR most of the time. Of course that is ludicris, but so is the idea that WR only help the offense when they draw coverage or catch passes. I watched the Ravens game and the Houston game. The main reason the offense looked bad wasn't WR, it was offensive line. There were free rushers on A LOT of plays. Josh was sacked 3 times and pressured on almost half his drop backs against the Ravens, and it wasn't because he was holding on to the ball because nobody was open. There was clear miscommunication up front. Houston game was similar, and Josh forced things and played his worst game this season. The Bills did make a good move grabbing Cooper. It is clear that Samuel wasn't who they or I thought he would be this season against man.

Typical... Changing the argument to suit your needs is par for the course. Let me state this plainly for you before I move on from this thread for good. The point of this thread was that the WR room, despite the drop in name recognition, would be better than last year. That the offense would play better. The people who agreed believed that the more diverse skill set and selfless, team oriented mentality would outweigh the production gap. The non-believers were worried that without a true #1 (or two), the offense would struggle to move the football and be worse than last year. The graphs above compare the Bills with and without Amari Cooper...like it is some shock that adding a pro bowl WR made the offense better. But where is the comparison of the pre-Cooper Bills to last year? That first graph wasn't best in the league, but it sure wasn't the worst, either...I bet it was better than last season. Curtis Samuel was a flop for whatever reason. Coleman had growing pains then an injury. Amari Cooper fixes that. But it doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't trade Hollins and Coleman for a healthy Diggs and Davis right now. That was the point of this thread...The WR group got better, even if it isn't "better". And that is true. It has been true all season. They are a better team with this roster. That trade was about Samuel falling off a cliff. Even the haters have been surprised by that. So you're claiming non-linear correlation? I find this funny, because this runs counter to the whole #1 WR theory, but whatever.

Who would he shadow on the 50%+ snaps where Cooper wasn't on the field last week? Against Detroit Cooper had the 4th most snaps AT RECEIVER and zero targets, but he is the reason we put up 48? Really? Amari Cooper is clearly a better WR than the guy he replaced (MVS), but to act like he was the key to unlocking this offense is just silly. Honestly, this offense looked fantastic when Kincaid and Coleman were out and Knox/Anderson were getting more snaps...perhaps we should cut them. Amari Cooper on last years team instead of Diggs, and this offense isn't this good. It's the line, it's the RBs, its the new WR all coming together. Amari isn't the only reason they have gotten better as the season has gone on, and its completely disingenuous to suggest as much

Correlation does not equal causation....

Again, nobody is saying Amari Cooper isn't valuable... I just find it ironic that for a hundred pages people argued that the WR position is about more than just stats, and all we saw was "Top 25" this and "100 Targets" that. We "NEED" a number 1 WR for this offense to function and were told a #1 was somebody with big numbers and a bigger contract. So We start off like a house on fire, and haters are quiet...then we suck for a few weeks (which also happen to be the worst the Oline has played all season) and haters are saying "see, told ya" Beene gets Cooper, and the offense gets better...but Cooper isn't getting #1 snaps, gets hurt, and isn't even putting up close to #1 production in any stat. Haters say "WR is about more than just stats" WTF Side Note: The Bills have scored 30+ points 11 times this season. Amari Cooper has played in 6 games for the Bills and started 4. He was 4th on the team in snap percentage this week against the Lions behind Coleman, Shakir and Hollins. He was also 4th last week behind Hollins, Shakir and Samuel.

No, I meant the negative folks are...

Moving the goal posts... Every post about a #1 WR used stats and contracts as confirmation. Of course, now that we traded for Cooper none of that matters. We have a #1 that was on the bench in the red zone in our last game, has been hurt, and has poor numbers...but clearly he is the reason our offense is going off now because he sucks away all the coverage. I'm not saying Cooper wasn't a good get for this team, but to act like HE is the reason the offense is good now (or even one of the top 5 reasons) is just silly.

And the game Cooper missed? the real reason they struggled in those Ravens and Houston games were two fold: they were the worst games the line played by far, and Shakir was banged up or out. claiming that Cooper is the reason they have gone on this run, and thus “victory” is pretty ridiculous

If we're still using stats to describe the WR group, we still haven't learned anything.

Assuming the injury happened on the hit and not the subsequent fall, why are we worried it is a ligament? Did the hit bend his wrist in an awkward way? Unless I am missing something, this is a blunt force injury and the joint was never forced into an awkward position, so it is more likely a break or bruise...not seeing how a ligament injury is even possible.

...I didn't make the thread

I am sure having Cooper has been a great addition, but to act like he is the key that unlocked it all is kind of silly. He really isn't getting a lot of snaps or targets and certainly not enough to explain the sudden increase in production. The real difference the last two weeks has been A) Healthy Shakir B) Emergence of Coleman (taking snaps from Hollins and MVS) C) Worse teams and a home game. I will say, Samuel was a big miss on my part. He just has not been a factor, at all. That clearly hurt their ability to beat man against good defenses, and it also pushed some guys up the roster that maybe shouldn't be getting so many snaps.

sounds silly, but it almost makes sense to get a personal foul intentionally.

Maybe I can ask this way... What is more likely, last season...that Stephon Diggs lost a step and could no longer "separate" or that changes to the scheme limited his ability to do so in favor of a more team-based offensive system? In other words, certain routes and/or route combinations make it easier for receivers to win against man. So do certain alignments and personnel groupings. This idea that a good receiver just constantly separates from coverage regardless of who is covering them, where they line up, or what route they run is ridiculous and not at all realistic. I would bet money that teams that more frequently use 6 OL, 12 personnel, and condensed sets tend to have a lower average WR separation regardless of their perceived talent. They also probably have a better epa and running game, so it's a trade off.

I don't know, does it? Matt Harmon also loves Curtis Samuel because he separates... Matt Harmon has an agenda. The idea that on a given play all the receivers will be open/separating is just silly.

Dorsey had a JA friendly system...

Ah yes, I am sure Ross Tucker poured over hours of tape before making that claim... And I have watched the games and some all-22, including some posted on here. In fact, there were just two clips the other day "proving" that our WR don't get separation...Only, the first they showed had 7 DBs in cover 2 and Kincaid could have been wide open but he ran right at the safety, not to mention the back was available and Josh didn't even look at him. But please, tell me all about how that was on the WR. FWIW, Diggs wasn't really getting separation when they made the switch to Brady, either...everyone assumed he just lost a step or was disinterested. But maybe it has more to do with the scheme, and more specifically with the type of adjustments they are allowed to run. It's pretty clear (to me) that, unlike under Dorsey, the WR are being coached to run the routes as assigned. That pretty much means the route combinations become the coverage beater, not the player. In theory, that works...but it forces your QB to process a lot more information pre and post snap and generally only one or two guys will be open on a given play. Oh and as for teams with bad receivers throwing less to first read...maybe you should take off the blinders and look at the other teams below average in that stat...Bears, Packers, Lions, Niners, Vikings...those are all good receiver teams.