Mikey152

A few things: There is no way someone can, with 100% accuracy, determine the first read in a play simply by watching all-22. Beyond that, who is compiling/vetting these charts? Credentials? Bottom line, this is not an objective stat and should t be treated as one. Second, even if this stat is 100% true, I think you are committing a logical fallacy due to confirmation bias. Your premise is the WR suck, and this “stat” which doesn’t say if the first read was open or not, if the first read was even a WR, or the type of defense being played against the call confirms it because the first read isn’t good enough to get open. there are a lot of reasons this is happening, and I don’t even know wr is at the top of the list. First, Josh has always had a tendency to hold the ball…he’s not really an anticipatory thrower AND he has a ton of confidence in his ability to extend plays. Second, this offense has changed to more of a “run your route” style offense, which means the post snap defense has a lot of influence on where the ball is going. His first read is going to be based on his presnap read. It’s not like he picks a receiver and says “get open” and the receiver can’t, so he moves on. Honestly, I don’t think the problem is the receivers, per se. I think trying to read the whole field under pressure while trying to not make a mistake is causing Josh to be indecisive. It doesn’t help that none of the receivers can just destroy man coverage and make it easy for him, I guess…but he shouldn’t need that if he is who we think he is. pretty much, I think Josh is the best thrower of the football in the NFL and I don’t think it is close…that covers up the fact that he is middle of the pack when it comes to decision making, and this offense and receiver core is exposing that to a certain extent. Hopefully some more “easy” reads with Cooper gets the job done.

Do you not see what is happening here? Your original premise was the Bills offense will struggle because they have bad WR. That we are wasting Josh Allen. Clearly through three games, this has not been the case. So now you have moved on to the premise that Josh and Brady are doing this IN SPITE of the Wr. I can show you your bias pretty easily… Our Qb is low in attempts (don’t trust him), most of his passes are around the LOS (probably because he throws so many picks otherwise), He barely completes passes to his WR despite the fact they are one of the most efficient groups in the nfl (game manager), and he never throws to his first read (indecisive and timid). You give Josh the benefit of the doubt because you think he is great…but he’s middle of the pack in yards this year too, yall. He’s also on track for not even cracking 4K, and yet this is his best season ever. i won’t go as far as to say it is hypocrisy, but it is 100% rooted in bias heading into the season. With Josh, you think he is great so you focus on the good. With the WR, you think they suck so you focus on the bad. Maybe, just maybe…football is a team sport, and the Bills have built a good team. WR included.

Ironically, this same crowd told me all offseason that I wasn’t allowed to project rate stats. (Even though that’s literally the point)…but apparently highly variable volume stats are fine to project.

That's why this thread is pointless... They are starting with a premise (the WR are bad) and using confirmation bias to support their theory. Josh could have the best season of his life and win the MVP, and sentiments in here will be that he did it IN SPITE of his WR. How silly is that? Here is my question to all the haters: Joe Brady isn't new. Josh Allen isn't new. The Oline isn't new. The RB aren't new. The TE isn't new. Even the scheme isn't really new. The only thing that is new this season is the WR room. Why are you SO sure that some of this success isn't because they are good in this scheme? And if they are good in this scheme and the offense and team succeeds, doesn't that make them good for the Bills? And doesn't that equally make guys like Diggs and Davis worse IN THIS SCHEME? Flat out, this scheme requires the receivers to catch, RAC, and block. Same as the rest of the skill guys. The guys this year are CLEARLY a better fit than the guys last year, regardless of your arbitrary metrics about who is better. All it takes is two eyes to see it. Everyone talks about how much better Josh looks, like he took some magic potion this offseason...maybe he just has a better team??? Analogy: A Ferrari is better than a RAM 1500...unless you need to tow something.

So true... But just for fun, lets just try and pin him down... Badol - Ignoring the small sample size for the moment, the fact that the Bills are the top scoring team in the NFL, 3-0, and have very low yardage output from their receivers compared to both the league and their own team last season are all true. So, that leads us two one of only two possible conclusions, as far as I can tell. Either: A) Yardage is an important indicator of WR quality/performance, and the Bills are succeeding IN SPITE of their WR...which also suggests that maybe top-flight WR isn't critical for a good offense? or B) Top flight WR are important to a good offense, and the bills have a good offense...which logically means their WR are good (or at least a good fit) and yardage totals maybe aren't the best barometer of success because they are at least partially dependent on targets.

Here is my predictions…looking pretty realistic IMO…just sayin

That’s not actually what I said, but it’s fine. What I actually said was, why can’t Curtis Samuel play the Diggs role of flanker in this offense? They’re similar athletes from a size and skill perspective. When I predicted production, I projected him for like 90 targets and 700 yards. What I didn’t know at the time was how different the offense would look and how many personnel groupings they would run out there…my assumptions were based on last year and last years usage rates when the bottom half of the depth chart was trash. And Badol, I DID project targets and yards based on 550 attempts and previous year ypt. So far, it looks pretty right…Shakir with around 1k yards, Kincaid around 8-900 and everyone else between like 2-700. If they throw less than 550 times, obviously those numbers drop proportionally…more they go up. But it had Josh around 4300 yards, which is right around 8.2 ypa. He’s at 8.8. Edit: Looks like I actually projected Samuel for 80 targets and 500 yards.

You keep missing the point. Counting stats like yards are for losers. Bills might be 14th in receiving yards, but they’re also 29th in attempts, 1st in touchdowns and second in receiving touchdowns. In other words, they’re extremely efficient. Josh’s yards per attempt this season is 8.8, and it’s being drug DOWN by the Miami game where he clearly wasn’t trying to or needing to make plays. Last season, Only 4/17 games were better (none of them were the first three) and most weren’t even close. you might argue they are doing all that in spite of the receivers, but all the other position groups and the oc are the same as last year for the most part…it’s not all the receivers, but clearly they are playing a part in the success. individual stats down, team stats up. Sounds like exactly what the “positive” crowd was predicting.

Maybe you need to relook at more than just the scores of those games... The commanders game, in particular, was not pretty. And the Vegas game was ok, but a big part of that was because, after the Jets game they ran the ball and focused on short passes and turnover-free football...hmm, sounds familiar. Here's the deal...sure, a great #1 is generally a good thing, especially if they're at least modestly team oriented and selfless. But any QB in the NFL is going to take a top offensive line, good RBs and TEs, and reliable WR that catch the ball over a (albeit talented) Diva WR, a guy that runs wrong routes and some ST scrubs that cant catch. You don't have to believe me, but just look at Josh's face...does he look like a guy that is pissed about his weapons these days?

First off, LOL at the idea that a defense can take away everything but the deep ball. Second, you and I remember last season very differently. I remember our offense looking like crap against the Jets week 1. I also remember it looking like crap for most of the commanders game Week 3. Yes, Josh lit up Miami and did ok against Vegas (who blitzed him more than teams normally do)...but I never thought to myself "man, this offense looks great" The fact of the matter is, this might not be the best our receivers have ever looked, but this IS THE BEST JOSH HAS EVER LOOKED...and it isn't particularly close. At the end of the day, isn't that the big argument for stud receivers? We have Josh Allen, lets give him weapons!!!!! Well, this is his best start to a season statistically in every stat that matters. His efficiency is WAAAAAY up, his sacks are down, drops are down. It's clear as day this offense is running better, and having a bunch of receivers top to bottom that do their job is a big reason why. So, they might not have better fantasy numbers, but theyre better where it counts: efficiency, scoring and wins

To be fair... This thread was quite the crap show. You shouldn't be surprised people are coming for receipts, because some of the takes in this thread had the Bills with historically bad receivers, no chance at winning, etc. And they were MEAN about it, too...like, "you're stupid if you don't agree" And yet, three games into the season Josh has a 133 QB rating and the Bills have scored FOURTEEN touchdowns...or double that of over half the league

The real answer? It’s not new. Just look at Tom Brady, and Joe Montana before him. Marino was a better quarterback than Montana. Rodgers, Manning and maybe even Brees were better QBs than Brady. It’s just the way it is.

The argument has, and always will be, that football is a team sport. Spending a ton of resources on QB makes sense, because they touch the football 50 times a game and it is the single most important/hardest position in all of sports. You also only need 1. The other 21/52 spots, though? It’s about balance. Spending lots of money or picks at one spot will cost you at another, and this can lead to sub-optimal results. yes, WR is important. Yes, having a good #1 WR is a luxury many teams will pay for. Nobody said it wasn’t. But it’s not more important than a good offensive line or good defense. It’s probably not even as important as having a good, diverse set of skill players. At the end of the day, this is football…not fantasy football. The Bills have demonstrated the ability to build and coach teams capable of winning lots of games by the largest margin in the NFL the last 5 years. Clearly their formula is pretty good.

Bill Belichick predicted this was gonna happen years ago. Unfortunately for him, his qb and wr were trash that couldn’t convert third downs.

If it is all about investment, and QB is more valuable than WR, shouldn’t we be drafting QBs high? After all, QB is the most valuable position. If not QB, maybe we should draft a bunch of DE high as up until this offseason they were the second/third most valuable position…oh wait, we did that and everyone hated it. Football is a team sport. We aren’t talking about 7 on 7 or flag here…Having several top WR at the expense of other “less valuable” positions is bad team building. Clearly this is pointless. The same group of posters feel a certain way about the WR group. The season is here now…guess we will just have to see what happens.

You guys are missing the point... ELITE WR contracts are climbing. There are about 50 WR making 5+ mil a year...and 29 guards. If you add in centers since most teams start 3 WR, there 43 interior lineman making 5 mil AAV. So sure, a top end starting WR is worth more than a starting guard...but by the time you get to WR 2 and def WR 3...C/G is just as important. You can do that for every receiver in the NFL, even slot players...If you want Addison playing X for your team regularly, have at it.

You aren't asking him to line up on the ball...he's just not that guy. He's not "just" a slot receiver, but he's not a ball-winner either. On the Bills, he would have played the slot last season, and this year we probably just would have resigned Gabe instead of signing Samuel....and not had Kincaid. I'm not sure contracts make the point you think they do... Because that would also suggest Daniel Jones is more valuable than any WR. You're also comparing #1 WR to #1 guards...but what about 3rd, 4th and 5th receivers to starting guards? Sure, I'd take JJ over Torrence...but I wouldn't take a #3 receiver over him and definitely not a 4th or 5th target. So unless you think Jalin Hyatt is a #1 WR, Im not sure I understand your point.

It's just not that simple... Hopkins signed a 2 year, 26 million dollar deal. We probably could have fit him under the cap instead of Floyd last year pretty easily, but this year would have been a nightmare...he has an 18 mil cap hit and 12 in dead money. So your version of realistic and my version of realistic are different. As for the bloated contracts...Von Maybe, but when he signed those deals they had tons of space and were making a SB push. Last year was clearly different than 2022.

At the end of the day, that seems to be the disconnect. For the folks that are saying the Bills should have done more, the answer to "how" is usually some form of passing on a potentially better player per the Bills grades (Kincaid, Torrence, Bishop, Carter, Davis) at a different position, trading tons of draft capital for a trade up, or kicking the can down the road on the cap for a Vet WR. I get that WR is important...but are you sure it's THAT important?

Maybe. But clearly they were trying to run it back one more time in 2023. They drafted a pass catcher with their first pick, and Torrence in the second is a good player. From the Bills third round pick to the fifth where shorter was picked, 5 WR went off the board and I am not sure any of them are any better than Shorter. I guess you could argue they could have take Puka, but that is hindsight at its finest. So maybe you wanted to trade up? For who? How much does it cost? Are they better than Kincaid or Torrence? Maybe you think Jalin Hyatt is the missing piece? What about FA? I think they tried. They could have signed OBJ or Hopkins, maybe...both expressed interest. But both wanted decent money...not bank breaking money, but good money. The type of money that either hamstrings you now or later. Beane has been very clear that he doesn't like to do that, so if your beef is that he didn't go all in on WR and either forgo other positions or tank a future season to do it, I hope you can at least see how not everyone sees that as a slam dunk choice like you make it out to be.

When the dust settles, I think Kincaid will be regarded as a better player than Addison. I say that as a Pitt alum. Jordan is kind of a high floor, low ceiling guy. He works great as a flanker or slot, but he isn't gonna play X any more than Shakir or Samuel would.

I mean…be my guest, but you won’t find either of those from me.

It’s not just about thinking that…he needed it to work because trading or cutting Diggs would involve massive dead cap. there weren’t a lot of realistic options on the market that can replace Diggs for what amounts to peanuts. You can put it right next to all the “Bernard is trash” and “Spencer Brown is the worst tackle in the league” receipts… oh wait

Why not? If you drop week 13 and 14 (he was hurt with a shoulder injury), his last 9 games (basically after the concussion) in the regular season he had 68 targets, 55 catches and 548 yards. Over 17 games, that projects to 128 targets, 103 catches and 1,035 yards. That doesn't even consider he is going into his second year now, and the two targets ahead of him on the depth chart are gone.

No? My projections for Kincaid in 2024 are similar to what I would have projected for Kelce in 2023...around 100 catches for 1000 yards and 6-12 TDs. Confidence level on Kelce would obviously be higher, but Kelce is 10 years older than Dalton. I expected regression from Kelce and I expect progression from Dalton, to the point where 2023 Kelce and 2024 Dalton have similar projections. Definitely not so different that it would make up for a clearly inferior receiving core.