Avisan

The Bills under Brady scored 27 per game against pretty good competition last season, despite Diggs falling off a cliff. Genuine question, what is the sustainability concern and where does it stem from? What do we think will be worse as compared to the back seven games of the season?

How are we defining "ball control"? The Bills passed about the same amount, they just happened to be running ~9 more plays per game than they did under Dorsey because their drives weren't constantly sputtering. YPA was unchanged, too. Turns out running the ball a little more when it's beneficial to do so can improve your offensive consistency. If the Bills continue to win games at a 6:1 ratio in the 2024 season I can promise I will not be complaining about how they do it.

So... when our offense is excellent, per usual, this year, are y'all still dooming going to acknowledge you were wrong? Asking for a friend.

You are citing some random fantasy football website's opinion as the basis of your claim?

(Citation needed)

One thing I really like about Coleman so far as that he comes across as being pretty cerebral about what moves will get him open and why. Seems to have a really good understanding of how defensive backs will typically move in a given coverage/leverage. Hoping he can translate that into continuing success against increased level of defensive competence in the modern NFL.

? I was addressing a specific argument because it was quantifiable and therefore easy to address. It ends the ambiguity and allows the conversation to progress based on that shared reality.

Shakir's production under Brady extrapolates out to 906 yards over 17 games, which would have been 34th highest among all pass catchers last season. That wasn't particularly difficult, unless you think we'll be unable or unwilling to use Shakir in the same way we did under Brady last season.

I am very aware that arguments made in bad faith typically fail to lead to productive discussions, yes.

Opinions unbacked by any facts are of comparably lower value than opinions backed by a non-zero quantity of facts. Is anybody here making an argument that the Bills' WR room is going to be good because they expect Claypool to be our starting lineup?

Surely you can do better than this, right? ...Right?

Oof, this is a rough take, and a rough comparison. Five out of our expected top 6 have had seasons as productive NFL players with significant roles. One of those five is a reclamation project, unrelated to his physical talent. The remaining player is a rookie that has NFL size and talent. Nathan Peterman has exactly zero games against NFL starters that show he can even be a stopgap. Not all hypotheticals are equally likely.

You can think the WR room sucks all you want-- once you start insisting that it is a fact that the WR room sucks, or that it's preposterous to think they might be decent, is where things get hairy.

Man, if he turns out great we are in REALLY good shape moving forward.

This is not a poll. This is some dude named Jarret Bailey's rankings.

Sure! It's unlikely given the Bills have a Top 3 QB and a Top 5 overall organization, so may is doing a lot of heavy lifting, but it's possible. I think it's extremely plausible he could end up Top 12, a la Stroud. Not likely, but plausible. In terms of likeliness, I think the Bills' WR talent comes in around #16 (one of Coleman or Claypool is productive), #28 (neither is productive), #12 (both are productive). I think middle of the pack would be a net improvement over back-half Diggs and Davis last season.

I mean this is exactly why the conversation isn't happening, it's all just vibes at this point until the season starts, and why I described it as a glorified poo-flinging contest to go down this road. If Claypool and Coleman both struggle it's a rough group. If they both perform well it's a good group. If one of them performs well it's a solid group. The Bills' room is currently tough to quantify and has a ton of uncertainty, which isn't inherently bad, but understandably yields their current ranking of bottom quarter.

Hollins was targeted 94 times in a meh 2022 Raiders offense and was good for 7.34 yards per target, he can do it if called upon. We're in a good spot if he ends up as our #5 or #6.

I mentioned this earlier in the thread-- it just isn't a very productive line of conversation? I think our passing offense will rank top 10, production-wise, and that's more or less all I care about. I think we have 4 players that are proven NFL-caliber players, plus Coleman and Claypool, and if either of them pan out we have a top 16 group and if they both pan out we have a top 12 group. If neither pan out we have a top 28 group. The degree of uncertainty with Coleman and Claypool limits the fruitfulness of the conversation. I think the Bills can have solid production with the current group, though.

Genuine question: why? Was our passing offense letting us down during the back-7 stretch of last season? Or were there perhaps games you feel we were not "the better team" but got lucky and won anyway?

Sure thing! Top 6 pace overall in net passing yards if you exclude Dallas, top 14 if you want to count a 31-10 running game beatdown of a playoff team as a mark against our offense. We are currently here.

We own their 2025 second round pick.

How are we defining "not good enough," though? I keep asking and so far the answers I've gotten are "Josh Allen threw INTs", "Destroying the Cowboys via the run game means the passing offense was bad", and "Top 10 isn't good enough" which is at least a real answer but is very different from what most other folks seem to fear will be the case this season. I'm especially confused by people who look at our play in the 6-1 stretch against primarily pretty good teams and think that means our team will fail to make the playoffs.

I, for one, would feel much better about the Bills' offensive investments if they overpaid draft capital for a player like Toney.

Pop quiz: Who is the General Manager of the Buffalo Bills?