PBF81

I would pose the same. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reconcile

There, you did reconcile it. LOL It wasn't difficult. Several thoughts there too however. Upon drafting Kincaid, and the quotes are there publicly, but we were told by McBeane that he would have a role this season and that it would be a signifiant one. I don't ever recall them saying, although maybe it's out there as I don't claim to read everything, that they were going to use him sparingly, the contrary is what I read, i.e., how much he'll help the offense in whatever manner they were planning on using him. But you also raise a great point in this discussion, namely that this "Sal C option" puts us as a major disadvantage with teams that do not deploy this what many consider to be idiotic option. In fact, that's one of the major and significant criticisms as to why we're not better, because we sit, in the "cheap years" of contracts, or underuse them perhaps, our draftees, and as they approach their rookie contract expiration dates. This, while other teams put them to use. That still doesn't address why Davis had 599 yards, 7 TDs, and 20 1st-Downs. Are they finding less use for Kincaid? IDK, but with your post as a backdrop, it definitely raises that question. As to the "Sal C option," we can can actually use queueing theory modeling to reveal the negative impact that has and the stress it therefore puts on the team in necessetating free agent acquisitions while tying up more and seemingly unnecessary cap dollars. Agree. And that was obviously the likely use for him as stated in the many draft profiles. In the questioning of coaching, I'll throw up the following. Of the first four TEs selected in the Draft, Kincaid having been the first, in trade-up fashion, two have more catches, neither had the receiving draft rep that Kincaid had/has. Kincaid: 19 targets, 17 catches, 118 yards, 6.9 Y/R, 0 TDs, 4 1Ds. LaPorta (taken 9 picks later): 42 targets, 29 catches, 325 yards, 11.2 Y/R, 3 TDs, 13 1Ds. Mayer (10 picks later): 11 targets, 8 catches, 116 yards, 114.5 Y/R, 0 TDs, 6 1Ds. Musgrave (17 picks later): 23 targets, 18 catches, 159 yards, 8.8 Y/R, 0 TDs, 5 1Ds. And Mayer and Musgrave have Garropolo and Love throwing to them, who will hardly ever be confused with Allen. Even Goff isn't as good as Allen in Detroit for LaPorta. But also, they're using Torrence, drafted after Kincaid. We could say, well that's because they need an OG badly. Don't we need a receiver that's got Kincaid's credentials badly too then. The short answer is yes, which once again points back to coaching. It's difficult not to notice that there are an awful lot of excuses and defenses being made, by players now as well, in favor of issues that for any other team would implicate coaching. At the end of the day, our offense is the most important part of this team. It's nice that McD has his little "Project-Defense" going on for seven seasons, but it's that same defense's play that has failed us in the playoffs, at least more notably than the offense. But we're not getting the most out of the offense, with Allen under center. That's a problem which to whom we attribute it can be debated as it is. I don't think we can lay Kincaid's lack of production at his feet for a failure to perform though.

We said that re: the Giants as well, who were playing with their backup QB. Or because our defense is such a hyper defense that is so fast-paced. The downside is that it obviously creates concern for whether or not they can keep that quasi-frenetic pace up. IMO that's a source for a lot of these injuries. I could very well be off though.

This is going to work itself out this season. By season's end the balance of belief in McD is going to shift in one direction or the other. It won't so much be predicated upon whether or not we win in whichever round, it will hinge entirely upon how prepared our team is to play, whether or not we put forth our best effort in any game, win or lose, and whether it's deemed that coaching has anything to do with a loss. i.e., if we end up playing the Chiefs, Jags, or Fins, but get outcoached with obvious play-calling blunders, and lose, and the offense obviously underperforming, then support for McD & Co. will shift one way. If we beat a wild card team like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, the Raiders or Colts but only barely, then it's also not going to be good and will depend upon the following games. If we play the Chiefs, Jags, or Fins, put up our best game in a hard-fought well-coached game, I see a shift towards support for McD & Co. Keep in mind though, that would be a playoff first for him. Either way, there's still 11 games remaining, a lot of different things could happen, nothing's going to change, nor should, at this point. Again, it'll work itself out, not everyone's going to be happy when it does. LOL Great point!

Well OK, good morning to you as well. That's not the point. the point is that either someone f'd up royally in the assessment of Kincaid, which based upon virtually all of the draft profiles from reputable draft analysts is far from the case, or it's a coaching/use issue. There really isn't another option in this case. If it's the former, then it is what it is. If it's the latter, then there's a very serious disconnect somewhere, particularly since we can ask the same questions re: a bunch of former 1st and 2nd round draft picks. The question was both serious and sincere and I was hoping for a more intelligent answer from you. I'll enter into the fray here between you and Bill from NYC here as well. Here's the thing about that statement by you, his (McD's) guys are going to defend him. It's also not a reach to suggest that if they didn't, and he found out about it, they may no longer have employment there. Much like Allen's defending Dorsey in the media now, saying that those critical of Dorsey (et al) aren't privy to the discussions. I mean given the hints that Dorsey is Allen's choice, that also shouldn't be anything approaching an epiphany. And that's all fine and dandy, but it's hardly questionable that they went into the Jax game flat, for example. Or that we massively underachieved vs the Giants. These, and other things, are blatant, not anything that one has to "be in the room" regarding. I mean even the announcers are picking on certain plays. No need to "be in the room" to notice those glaring, and many are glaring, issues. If I can add, the biggest thing that Allen seems to have taken from McD is parroting [his] line, "I need to be/play better." That's starting to sound like a broken record. McD's press nonsense as well. Anytime there's a "broken record," it' s safe assumption that it's the DJ that's at least largely at fault. We've seen very little besides the most superficial of accountability here on McD's watch if we want to be honest, at least insofar as the media goes. I will even suggest that if their play is an issue, even sporadically, if those tacks with the media continue, it's not doing them any favors. Ergo, it's a real reach that "his guys" are going to say anything different to outsiders. And look, I know that you disagree here, just throwing these things out in the interests of good and informative debate, but they are relevant. You know that I'm of the opinion that McD is a control freak, and I'll site your own statement above, McDermott weilds the most power in the organisation, as at least a reasonable basis for that take. And yes, before you get all upset, I realize that's not what you were saying, I get it. But nonetheless, it's also not a large leap from that, your, statement, to my premise. And as Bill and many other point out, this team's MO, let's call it "The Process" since "The Process" has never officially been defined, leans very very heavily to McD's strengths, but more relevantly, very very much away from his weaknesses, namely the offense. Whether that's wise given the generational talent that we have at QB is certainly within the realm of honest debate and discussion.

So given all that, and keeping in mind that even those relating that info to you are going to have their biases, but that aside, how do you reconcile the enormous gap between Kincaid's obvious capabilities, and his lack of proper use, which has led to massive underachievement by him, and mid-late day-3 performance on pace for 334 yards, 0 TDS, and notable less than one 1st-down per game? If he were on Jax, Cincy, KC, Philly or perhaps a handful of other teams, how do you think he'd be doing? ... Generally speaking contrasted with here. I'll add some more context; In Davis' rookie year, he logged 35 catches, 599 yards, 7 TDs, and 20 1st-Downs, as a 4th-round selection that didn't have Kincaid's route-running ability, hands, etc. I didn't use Davis to try to bolster Davis, the opposite actually. But that is definitely an enigma of sorts.

If he takes the team into the playoffs and loses, but plays our best game, coaching included, and is simply beaten by a better team that outplayed us all things being equal otherwise, that's one thing. Granted, it would be a first. But if we produce another stinker like the Cincy game, get out-coached, allow an inferior team to beat us because we didn't bring our best, or the team showed up unprepared, then that's another. In the case if the latter it should take care of itself. These discussions both here and in the media would become a lot more lopsided. Right now it already appears that we were off to another fast start and have already slowed down after expending a lot of emotional capital on our first four games. Floyd for example is on pace for 18 sacks. What fool thinks that that's really going to happen. I'm thinking that 10-7 and a wild-card spot would actually help us come playoff time, not be a detriment. Let's see how things play out and see where things stand when the music stops. Who knows, maybe it'll be 7 a.m. and the party downtown just ended. 😎

Also, it's in how we lose in the playoffs. Giving the game away (13 Seconds), showing up unprepared, having the #1/2 defense during the regular season but playing like a bottom tier D in the playoffs, major inconsistencies on offense, these are not indications that a coach needs a few more seasons. It was the same in the 90s, Levy held us back at that level. If Parcells, Johnson, or Gibbs had been our coach, we'd have our Lombardi by now. SMH, I still recall the last Super Bowl, we were up 13-6 at the half. The field reporter related the info that Johnson was in the locker room throwing chairs and swearing up a storm, and that Levy was reading Hemingway quotes. Whatever happened, 24-0 Dallas in the second half.

A good possibility. Their schedule is the easiest of ours, Miami's, and KC's.

We'll see how this season progresses. But there's a strong argument for having an "all world" or at least highly experienced OC for Allen and the offense at this point. In terms of coaching, the offense has seemingly been the red-headed stepchild of the team on McD's watch. This season will reveal much, but McD's taking risks with his tenure as a HC if he doesn't address the situation if it doesn't correct itself. One of his strengths coming out is route-running. So once we start blaming the players, and a rookie who was arguably the strongest route-running prospect among all TEs in the draft, and a strong candidate to make an impact as a rookie, then those fingers doing the pointing begin to go limp. Agree

No doubt. We obviously disagree as to the extent that coaching is implicated. As sunshynman just said, there are far too many times where multiple receivers are in the same exact spot or other such issues, that have nothing to do with the WR-ing talent. Among other issues that are not directly related to the talent. Also, If they cannot take a proven good-hands and excellent route-running talent like Kincaid, and get a little bit more than what's presently pacing for 334 yards, 0 TDs, a dozen 1st-Downs, all on fewer than 7 Yards-per-Catch, it's a tough battle claiming that coaching isn't the biggest reason for that ridiculous output. I think most people here will be stunned if Kincaid doesn't put up at least what Knox did last season. And at the very minimum then, start holding Beane accountable for drafts that force us to go the free-agency route.

Yes, I understand that's what a lot of peoples' thoughts are. Mine are to consider a number of other factors before rushing into a decision like that, and file under be careful what you wish for, you may get it. That's not to say that Samuel might not be better. It is to say that IMO it's a bit more complicated than that for reasons that I've already hinted at or outright mentioned. "My stats", really simply the stats, were on a per-game basis over the course of a career. 5th season for Samuel, 4th for Davis. So not quite sure why you say that. Gabe makes more big plays, that much should be obvious. I have a hunch that if we did get a "WR2" here that did run more routes, etc., but didn't put up those big plays, everyone would be all over him too for not making enough big plays. I would argue the "more weapons" for SF although that's not particularly relevant. What is relevant is how would Samuel be in our offense? The short answer is that we don't know. Keep in mind, we can't use Kincaid effectively. What makes you think that this staff is going to use a WR like Samuel to his capabilities? (which are different than Gabe's, which shouldn't get lost in the discussion) I'm far from convinced that we would reap the full benefits of a WR like Samuel opposite Diggs. Consider Hines last season. He was among the best receiving RBs in the league when he was in Indy. Here, ... nada. They talked about it as they traded for him, but never got it done. It's hardly that we didn't need it or couldn't have used it. And how would Samuel do on a team that doesn't typically rely on a pocket, like SF does, and with the lesser running game that you mention? A lot of people put blame on Gabe's shoulders, but it really should be on the coaching staff, but they cannot bring themselves to see that. Again, there's some cart/horse stuff involved here.

No. Does it read that way? Is this an either/or thing? Or do you think that there's more to the analysis? But Samuel's more like the WR2 that some are crying for. Do you think that it's irrelevant that Davis has nearly twice the TDs in fewer games played?

No disagreement here. But the focus should be on that second part. Also, I just posted, in response to the "best teams ..." about how Davis has outperformed Deebo Samuel in terms of TDs & 1st-Downs, on a per-start basis. Samuel is SF's #2 WR. They are the current favorites to win the Super Bowl. So logically, if a team needs a great #2 WR to win a Super Bowl, why is that the case. (rhetorical) What a team needs is a solid offensive philosophy and a coach that's capable of carrying it out in optimizing/maximizing the talent that's on that unit. Pretty simple really.

Agree with that generally speaking, but not with the bolded part. Here's evidence in support of that. I posted it elsewhere already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axzo6SP7hSE

San Francisco's the leading Super Bowl contender right now. Deebo Samuel is their #2 WR. He's had one notable season, otherwise borderline #2/#3 seasons. He's currently on pace for 800 yards, 3 TDs, and 30 1st-Downs. Davis is on pace for almost 1,000 yards, 11 TDs, and more than 30 1st-Downs. Samuel has averaged about 1 TD for every 4 starts and 3 1st-Downs per start. Davis has averaged about 1 TD for every 1.5 starts (nearly three times the rate) and 3 1st-Downs per start. Would we rather have Samuel, ... for example? Would he perform better here than he has in San Fran? If so, why? He's currently on a 3-year $72M contact as a former high 2nd-round draft pick. Thoughts?

Oh, it's feasible. So then what should be the obvious question is why hasn't it happened? Your last sentence is key. But we don't seem to be willing to point the fingers at the core causes for the problems and issues.

Well, to start, when I referred to consistency, I was referring to our game-to-game offensive consistency under Dorsey, so this and last season, with a premier QB. This season SF has been notably more consistent offensively speaking. 17, 30, 30, 30, 35, and 42 So has Miami, whose lowest two scoring games were 20 and 24 points. Ours, 14, 16, an 20. Detroit has been. Philly has been. KC, given the literal bunch of JAGs that they have as WRs has been suprisingly consistent. Not high-scoring, but consistent, more consistent than we've been. Dallas has been inconsistent like us. Our highs are high, but our lows are low. Some of it may have to do with Allen, but for that I would suggest that coaching, or lack of proper coaching. Look at his ratings over the course of last season contrasted with those of the other top QBs, he's easily the least consistent in that regard. Run the standard deviation for scoring for every team's games and it'll be clear.

That's a great answer that implied many more things than perhaps you realize. I'll break it down into the three sentences. So this one, ... He does have chemistry with Josh, but that chemistry produces. Our issues seem to be, generally speaking, that we either are not satisfied with his level of production, and/or that we're not content with his style, aka the way and manner which he produces. But until someone can explain to me why a 1st-Down logged one way is not the same as one logged via another, all other things being equal, it would still seem to be a 1st-Down. My position is that as long as it produces, then who cares how he classifies as a WR or whether or not he's a classic #2 WR, right? Maybe our system, aka "The Process" apparently, isn't designed for a classic #2. I don't know. We don't know. There are complexities to it all, and it's a fair assumption that the coaching staff hasn't even figured it out, based on the premise that if they have, then we wouldn't perpetually having this discussion about our WRs and WR corps. But let's be clear, it's their system, it's what they have obviously wanted here. But here's the thing, how can we honestly entirely dismiss what you said, that Davis knows the offense and has chemistry with Josh, as being insignificant enough to warrant bringing in a more traditional #2 WR that won't necessarily have chemistry with Josh and for sure won't know the offense off the bat. Maybe he would, over time, but it's hardly guaranteed. And with Josh we don't have the typical Brady/Burrow type pocket passing game. Which WRs besides Diggs would you say that Josh has a chemistry with? I don't see any in particular. He had chemistry with Beasley, the only other WR that he did have it with on a consistent basis. They should have done a lot of things, including upgraded the OL too, ... at some point over the past 6 seasons that Beane has had to do so. Granted, he did it this season effectively, but again, defenses appear to be figuring out our offense so we'll see how that progresses. But more relevantly, maybe having that classic and far more traditional #2 WR would require more time in the pocket and therefore a QB that's more prone to pocket-passing and all predicated upon having a notably better OL. I don't know, just throwing that out there. But again, it's more complex than most of us realize, and not finding a classic #2 WR that is, but the entire situation. Some cart/horse stuff in there IMO. The reason why Davis is still here is because there's no chance on earth that they were going to cut the only other WR besides Diggs that Josh had chemistry with, and that has come at a price tag of less than $1M/season and not even that for this season. Is he worth $5M/season? Yes, obviously. $15M/season? I can't say but probably not. So where's that dividing line? Suppose we bring in another "#2 WR," to start, how do we know that he'll have any chemistry with Josh? And then how do we know he'd be any better? Wouldn't it make more sense to keep Davis until such a time? IOW, fine, bring in the desired #2 WR, if he works, great, let Davis operate in "his role" then also. I see no conflict there. I do see a huge risk, particularly given the game of musical chairs that we've been playing for Beane's 6-year tenure, of not having Davis and plugging-n-playing the next big signing WR on the list. Let's face it, their methodology in staffing the WR corps has been on the opposite end of the spectrum from inspiring. Even before this season, the arguments I got into about how Harty and Sherfield were not going to make a significant impact, getting hammered as to the opposite, which has essentially been the take every preseason, how "the experts know more than we do," yet here we are, again, and "the experts" aren't getting the job done. At least that's the recurring theme and narrative, now with Chris Simms chiming in with his two cents. At the end of the day the Bills should have done a lot of things, like bolstering their OL for Allen, their likely never-to-be-had-again generational talent at QB. But they didn't. If the situation is to be corrected, someone has look at the why, how, etc. of it all and pull the trigger on the corrections. But we've been shuffling WRs in and out for over half a decade now in this never-ending game of musical chairs and we're still discussing the issue. Apparently not as he wasn't brought in for that. But we're not even using him for what they said he was brought in for. That would appear to be a coaching issue. There was absolutely nothing but praise for Kincaid as sure-handed pass-catcher that could run routes well. The comparisons were of him to Kelce by many. The reality is that he's been more like Scott Chandler or Charles Clay. So why can't our team use him like that? It obviously shouldn't be talent and it seems to me that if he were on another team, Philly, KC, Cincy in particular, Miami, and others that he'd be doing a whole lot more in the receiving department than he is here, even others than aren't overall good teams, just with more competent offensive management/coaching. Same with Hines who was a prolific receiving RB, but not here, where he did zilch. So it's quite possible that they're also not getting what they can from Davis, but to ignore that it could very well be coaching that is the issue, is a mistake. But for anyone to suggest, other than on speculation that another/other WRs would be better, that Davis ain't cutting it or the equivalent, and in and of itself, is a mistake. I do think that competent management/coaching of our offense would correct the situation. I have no idea why that isn't the prevalent narrative and opinion at this point, with a "defensive-minded" and offensively laissez-faire head-coach at the helm of this rig.

Again, that's oversimplifying it. We're not talking about perfection here, we're talking about consistency, and yes, other offenses are more consistent, aka better coached. Any notions that Dorsey's doing anything approaching an optimal job can be argued using the same approach. If it were so difficult, then a bunch of other teams wouldn't be doing it.

I'm not making a direct comment on Davis one way or the other here, but if he weren't on this team right now the offense would not be nearly as good. Whether that would befall Beane, McD, or whomever is another related discussion. But if Davis were to get injured for the season this week, the offense would notice.

Food for thought. It's obviously not true only for Davis.

To your point more generally, after six seasons of Beane and Seven of McD, they're still unsettled offensively. Honestly, I don't know how there isn't more heat on McBeane for that.

It should give pause to the Beane supporters. And as if they're all identical on every team.

Agreed. But 22 games in, how many games should Dorsey/McD need to correct what at least partially are some blatant issues.