BillsVet

If McBeane were confident with their WR group, they wouldn't be making moves or inquiring about street FA's at this point in camp. Because if losing Chase Claypool means you gotta find explore WR's off the street, something is dreadfully amiss. Thing about Kincaid is, they used him close to the LOS and this season that's not going to fly. His 73 receptions averaged 9.2 yards per catch, or among TE's with 20 or more catches ranked 37th of 47. His yards per target was only 7.4, or 24th of 47. For reference, Knox was 40th and 45th respectively. They have to feature Kincaid on deeper routes, because their WR group features no one who is a legit threat. Not MVS, not Hollins, and certainly not Shakir or Samuel. And if you need to bank on Coleman, then that's an issue as well.

Beane loves his Corey's...he once took a swing on Corey Coleman and blew 3M in cap room. OBD has really dropped the ball, in all seriousness, at WR this off-season. Comes off as amateur hour.

This isn't a tale of the tape for a heavyweight boxing match. All these numbers, taken at the beginning of a player's career are less relevant that you think. Think Curtis Samuel still runs a 4.3 after taking thousands of snaps? Or MVS at sub-4.4? None of this measure whether a guy is appropriate for the role they envision. Because someone has to line up at the X and Z positions. Is Curtis Samuel appropriate for a boundary receiver role? Probably not as described by @Kirby Jackson. Thing is, none of this reflects whether the player runs solid routes, or diagnoses different coverages, or can beat press coverage. None of those measurables can account for whether the receiver has some chemistry with Josh. That's relevant because the offense is changing and 4 of the 5 guys who are likely on the roster now are new to the QB. They've downgraded the position and we can debate why, but it'll show up and people here know it. And, thinking Brady will scheme open guys...well, perhaps at the beginning of the season but eventually defenses will catch up. Personnel limitations are what they are, and several of these guys are limited. And as for their cost...I'm not paying out the money nor is anyone here. I want the best receivers for the QB this team has on the roster this year. That is the best chance they have for winning a SB.

I can envision guys like Hollins having to play until they make an in-season trade for someone who's capable at playing outside. And until that point, I can then see the narrative will be something like how they were cap-poor and couldn't possibly find better options.

Passing offenses, you know, kinda rely on who is receiving the ball. I'll bet you were one of the people last year highlighting how Deonte Harty and Trent Sherfield would make that passing offense better.

I have often wondered who in the front office and among the coaching staff knows what a modern offense is and the has some authority to acquire personnel to fit that. Some real head-scratchers how they built their WR group, but they've been a day late and a dollar short on WR decisions all off-season. Started with dealing Diggs 3 weeks after UFA started and continues now.

"Loaded up at WR this off-season..." Last season's over dude. Brady's run-based offense isn't going to surprise anyone either this year. Many outlets have ranked the Bills WR's as bottom quartile in the NFL. Buffalo acknowledged their issues by signing guys who are one foot out of the league like MVS and Claypool after the draft because they offer no one who can stretch a defense. Josh will largely be throwing to a bunch of slot receivers and backs this year. That's how you know what their offense is going to be and if you can't see that, I'm sorry.

The offense is going to be a lot different this season minus Diggs and Davis than it was last year. They feature no decent options downfield and defenses will focus on defending a shorter field. I don't see Cook replicating last season for that reason. If he's dropping passes now, he'll do it in the regular season when the element of an intermediate passing game was in place. Fred Jackson had almost 1,400 yards in 10 games in 2011 when he went down with a season-ending injury. And if there's a choice between a 2009-2011 era Fred Jackson or 2023 James Cook the choice is easy who I'd want on the field at RB. And it ain't Cook.

Cook last year was 3rd worst in the NFL for passes dropped percentage at 11.1%: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2023/receiving_advanced.htm The 4 fumbles on 281 touches is probably not what McD is looking for from his lead back either. Then again, the other option is a rookie who may not have the speed to get to the LOS and gets wrapped up in the backfield. Not ideal.

The timing of the MVS signing was interesting to me - a whole 2 weeks after the draft and immediately after they released Quintez Cephus. It would really stink that they have to keep a lesser player on the active roster as little more than a decoy because they were late to acknowledge needing someone to be a true intermediate to deep threat.

Did you read the article? Among other things, a key question was why did they built a more pass-blocking oriented OL paired with average at best and journeymen caliber RBs? Yet, the HC was out there lamenting the running game and increasingly blaming the OC (of which some was deserved). I'm not concluding that Daboll was this offensive savant play-caller, because he wasn't. But the analysis always seems to be at field level when it's clear there's personnel and philosophy issues which are hindering them before they start. I don't expect the HC to do a mea culpa, but after Daboll was gone, as the writer notes, they signed veteran run-specific OLineman and their running game improved who were liabilities as pass blockers, but the goal was achieved...at the expense of the passing game. The whole of this organization, however, is punctuated by a risk-averse coach who can't shake from his roots and won't trust anyone unless they are in lock-step with him. Why is it the responsibility of the offense to protect the defense to the degree we are ascribing to the HC? It's completely misguided given who the QB is. And, is it a good plan to expect a defense that relies on 7-8 DL, 2-3 LBs, and 5-6 DBs to largely remain healthy for a 17 game schedule? That requires a great deal of fortune, but comes at the cost over-restricting the offense. I see people here complain loudly when defensive players are lost for the season as if it only happens in Buffalo. If that's the plan, it ain't realistic. I can acknowledge last year's Divisional Round game-plan was necessitated by having multiple defenders out (Milano, Bernard, Hyde) but for a team that drafts so much defense, it's not optional to keep young players on the bench sometimes.

Question isn't how much that they were a passing offense or how much room McD gave the OC. It's that he deep-down was opposed to it. https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/analysis/sean-mcdermott-buffalo-bills-ken-dorsey/ "McDermott in 2021 on the pass-heavy offense: “That has not been my message from Day 1, I can promise you that. If you were in the team meetings in training camp, you would know what style of offense I want. That identity needs to embody toughness.” It is extremely odd that a HC would say this having just seen the best offensive season from a Bills QB in team history and being in the AFC CG. A season they averaged more than 31 points, went 7-1 to finish the season and scored 303 points in those 8 games. It is extremely odd that running it more would be a prime goal the following season when, were it not for a defensive melt-down the following season, Buffalo would have returned to the AFC CG. Or, that following that 2020 season, they wouldn't add any significant offensive weapons in 2021 or 2022 aside from a RB who didn't play that much as a rookie.

Understand. I see this model used in Carolina as something they need to overhaul to meet with league trends and because they have a franchise QB. Never in Carolina did they have a QB, not even Newton, who was near as good as Josh. Yet, they've gone from working to or actually putting WRs around him (2019-20) to then going the route of ignoring/under-resourcing the position in (2021-22) to deciding they'd be more complementary in 2023-24. I'd even argue their approach with WR's is always a step-behind in that they went with bigger catch-radius types when the league was going away from it in 2017-18, to returning to it as the league transitions back to the shifty guys. They come off as without an appropriate offensive strategy or being ahead of the personnel game.

This is a further upstream issue than just the OC. The blame game tends to go as high as coaching, but it's clear that off-season personnel decisions can hinder whomever the OC is. I'd like them to be more of a downfield passing team too, but they are now more run-focused primarily because they acquired the players to do it. If it works throwing shorter and running more, great. But, if they struggle at any point there's almost nowhere to go mid-season aside from back to the well and running Josh. They are too limited by WR skill-sets and talent/inexperience which will impact what they can do throwing the ball. And those WR's aren'tdownfield types. But that's the point and how they want to run this offense.

McBeane decided to remake the roster and prolong the rebuild in 2017-18 while they burned cap space. But the issue we're talking about here is WR's and their lack of draft investment there. They used far too many UFA dollars trying to buy/trade for an offense in 2019-20 and that's why we're having this conversation here today. Because they didn't find the players to develop behind those guys like Brown, Beasley, and Diggs. I even refrained from, during the first 6 years (2017-2022) of McBeane how they used 5 of their 7 RD1 picks on defense.

I knew the 2018 "they was outta money" argument would surface. Didn't prevent them from giving 5 and 50 to Star or 3 and 27 to Trent Murphy. And then, thru first half of 2018 they had one of the worst offenses since the '78 rules changes. None of this book you've written removes the fact that in 2018 they drafted their franchise QB and then proceeded to put bargain bin types around him while improving the defense each year. Even if you include the 3rd rounders from 2018-20, after Josh they went MLB, DT, DT, bust OL, RB, TE, Diggs trade, Epenesa, RB. Didn't draft a WR until Davis in RD4 of 2020 after taking Josh.

You missed the whole point. They invested in 2018 on Josh Allen. The immediate need therefore was to surround him with talent, not 5 or 6 years down the road. Their plan was to buy or trade for veterans and pay them beyond rookie wages in 2019-20. In fact, the Bills have not drafted and developed one WR1 or WR2 type guy since 2017. We are here talking about this WR issue for the 4th straight off-season because the team prioritizes their premium draft picks away from supporting Josh...until there's an emergency like last year. You know, when they missed out on the top WRs and had to trade up to take a flex TE. Or this year, taking the 8th WR off the board. Fact is, this team only prioritizes receivers when it's absolutely necessary. But they'll load up on DL year after year because someone there can't live without as many as they deem necessary.

Well, they ran it back a couple years in a row until their self-inflicted cap issues made it hard to keep spending big on defense with Josh's and Diggs' contracts. 2024 is really a referendum on this idea of complementary football. If it works, great. If not, a significant course correction is in order that supports Josh first and everything else becomes second. Still don't see this HC signing up for that though.

I don't see anyone having an issue with the concept of prioritizing the DL. NFL teams always want pass rushers with the aerial game so prolific. And of course McD values them even more because his defensive scheme emphasizes front-4 pressure. Their move to sign Miller was, on its face, a bold move to address this. It's how much this priority investment costs for other areas of the team. To that point, after taking Josh in 2018, their next 9 RD1 or 2 picks netted 4 DL, 1 MLB, 1 bust OL, 1 CB, Diggs, and Cook. At some point, a very good organization either succeeds and shows their philosophy works or takes a long look in the mirror and says something has to change during the next off-season.

Trestman. It's Marv's successor with the Montreal Alouettes as CFL Grey Cup Winner to NFL HC. Obviously. Kidding. Congrats to Marv on his 99th and wish him many more.

Bonus points for gaslighting in this thread to claim the original point I made on strength of schedule was actually "first place schedule." A true beauty you are. We done here.

Dude, you always pivot the discussion to a tangential subject when backed into a corner. It's how you end up at "first place schedule" versus the originally raised subject...strength of schedule. No one's talking about "first place schedule" except you. Same tactic used by another low-grade poster who shall remain nameless, but decided to turn the WR group room thread into the WR/TE discussion. Stick to the subject and quit the quibbling, conflation, and ridiculous pivots. Until then, you're not a serious TSW poster.

None of your quibbling removes the fact that a 40 game streak of not losing by more than 6 points is inconsequential. And if you don't even know how to figure out strength of schedule, I don't know what to tell you. If there were a remedial TSW class for fans, you'd be in the front row every year. Yeah. Hoisting the regular season success trophy is a common theme here when things go south, but it doesn't matter at this phase in the team's development beyond whether they have the #1 seed and win all their playoff games. Lot of people who want to feel good and point to those stats/game results while quibbling (see above) because their ego gets in the way of admitting the team has underwhelmed at least 3 years running.

Added context to that stat is their strength of schedule was 2021 - t-26th, 2022 - 20th and 2023 - 27th. Being in a game against the Jets and losing by 3 is a whole lot different than playingt KC and losing. This stat doesn't differentiate from that. It just highlights that games didn't get out of hand. Thing about the NFL now is most games are decided by one score and with Josh, I'd expect them to be in every game.

Legalizing sports gambling has paved the way for more statistical analysis in sports than ever which on TSW can support or diminish poster opinions. This usually means taking a statistic and delving deeper beyond that stat though. Requires an understanding how stats should be used and which ones matter over others. This point about not losing by more than 6 in the past 40 games means almost nothing. In that 40 game window we're talking about games like the inexplicable Minnesota loss at home in 2022. Also doesn't illustrate the games they played to the level of their competition like the losses by 2 at Miami and 3 at NYJ in 2022 or the opener last year. Given the competition, losing by less than 1 TD in those games isn't something to celebrate. The Bills' last 3 years have had 2 constants: some level of excellence at the start of the season (weeks 2-5 in 2021, Weeks 1-2 in 2022, Weeks 2-4 in 2023) followed by the mid-season swoon that starts around week 6 and goes to about week 13 from 2021-23. That's what needs to change in 2024.