Texans releasing JJ Watt

[TBBills]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Think JJ wants a ring. If it is AFC the Titans make some sense if he doesn't feel that is too much of a middle finger to Houston. After that the Bills make as much sense as anyone.

Titans don't make sense they are a playoff only team. The Bills make the most sense since they are in the rise. I honestly doubt the Titans make the playoffs next year actually. They gave it everything they had and still couldn't get it done... They have been doing worse in the playoffs each year.

Edited February 14, 2021 by TBBills

[GunnerBill]

Just now, TBBills said:

Titans don't make sense they are a playoff only team. The Bills make the most sense since they are in the rise. I honestly doubt the Titans make the playoffs next year actually.

 

They are not missing much. What they are missing is pass rush. At the moment they are still the best team in their division. Let's see what Indy does at QB.

[BuffaloRebound]

Tennessee makes a lot of sense but you gotta think McNair at least asked him to not go to a team in same division, but Texans looking pretty poorly run so you never know.  

[Buffalo03]

7 hours ago, Sherlock Holmes said:

Oh my...that picture of JJ in our uni! Let's mount up indeed

Not gonna lie, I thought at very first glance this was a bald black guy having his head and face cleaned

[TheBillsOrDie]

On 2/12/2021 at 10:10 AM, Limeaid said:

 

His contract was $17,500,000 - no one is giving a pick to assume that contract.

The Jags would, isn't that how we got rid of Darius's contract

[strive_for_five_guy]

What is the JJ Watt/Logan Thomas connection?

[YoloinOhio]

49 minutes ago, TheBillsOrDie said:

The Jags would, isn't that how we got rid of Darius's contract

They would never trade him in the division 

[Solomon Grundy]

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

They are not missing much. What they are missing is pass rush. At the moment they are still the best team in their division. Let's see what Indy does at QB.

Titans don't have that QB that can put a team on its shoulders and win games. Let's be real, Tannehill is a good QB but he's not on Allen/Watson level. Without Henry, he's average at best. Personally, I think Watt is doing his inner Tom Brady right now. He's going over team rosters and seeing where he can provide an impact while winning. Also talking to people/players about  organizations epititude. Brian Gaine may be a big player in bringing Watt to Buffalo. I'd like to know how their relationship was. 

Edited February 14, 2021 by Solomon Grundy

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 hours ago, JGMcD2 said:

What I am saying is that there weren’t 110 targets on this offense for Thomas. There are only so many targets to go around. You can give him all of Knox’s targets, but then where do we go from there? How many does he pull from Diggs, Brown, Beasley and Davis? Probably not enough to make a substantial difference and not nearly enough to put up the numbers he did in Washington.

 

Interesting assessment and comparison to Baseball scouting.  I think some people said a similar thing, years ago, about Stevie Johnson - that he had been the Bills #1 WR, but that he would no way be the #1 WR on a team with a top-tier offense.  And in fact, when he went to San Francisco, he was their #3 behind Boldin and Crabtree.

 

And we do the same thing here periodically, talking about how many players we have on offense or defense who would start on other teams.

 

Anyway, I'd like to hone in on the part I quoted above.  I don't think it's at all the "zero sum game" you portray above "there are only so many targets to go around".  I think our offense has room to become a better offense with more targets overall. 

 

For realism, let's look at the best teams in different categories this season and how the Bills stack up to them.  The Bills were #2 in offensive yards, with 310 fewer yards than KC.  Probably some room for more plays there - let's look.  Yes, in fact the Bills were #15 (!!!!) for offensive plays, with 93 fewer plays there than the #1 team, the Chargers.  We were #27 for offensive penalties, with 40 more than the least-penalized team. 

 

Let's say for ease of calculation, we could have 100 more offensive plays (between #15 for offensive plays and #27 for penalties, clearly room to improve).  Let's say we maintain the same 59%/41% run-pass split (the focus being a more effective run game, not more run plays).  So 59 more pass plays. 

 

Knox and Singletary had 44 and 50 targets, respectively.  If all those 59 pass plays went to Knox, he could clearly have >100 targets without taking a thing away from anyone else.

 

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a Happy Valentine's Day" (wait - is that not how it goes?) but I think the underlying point is clear.  Realistically, the Bills could have more offensive plays without even exceeding what a team actually did last season, and those plays gotta go to someone.  Since Diggs and Beasley rightfully draw a lot of defensive traffic, if we had a reliable TE (an improved Knox, a pass catching RB etc) it's probably not unrealistic to think they could be the beneficiaries.

[HOUSE]

This whole JJ Watt thing is a scam designed to keep members glued to the board.

I highly doubt he even a free agent

 

SCAM

[Hapless Bills Fan]

36 minutes ago, strive_for_five_guy said:

What is the JJ Watt/Logan Thomas connection?

 

None that I know of.  Thread drift.  It happens.

[FireChans]

27 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Interesting assessment and comparison to Baseball scouting.  I think some people said a similar thing, years ago, about Stevie Johnson - that he had been the Bills #1 WR, but that he would no way be the #1 WR on a team with a top-tier offense.  And in fact, when he went to San Francisco, he was their #3 behind Boldin and Crabtree.

 

And we do the same thing here periodically, talking about how many players we have on offense or defense who would start on other teams.

 

Anyway, I'd like to hone in on the part I quoted above.  I don't think it's at all the "zero sum game" you portray above "there are only so many targets to go around".  I think our offense has room to become a better offense with more targets overall. 

 

For realism, let's look at the best teams in different categories this season and how the Bills stack up to them.  The Bills were #2 in offensive yards, with 310 fewer yards than KC.  Probably some room for more plays there - let's look.  Yes, in fact the Bills were #15 (!!!!) for offensive plays, with 93 fewer plays there than the #1 team, the Chargers.  We were #27 for offensive penalties, with 40 more than the least-penalized team. 

 

Let's say for ease of calculation, we could have 100 more offensive plays (between #15 for offensive plays and #27 for penalties, clearly room to improve).  Let's say we maintain the same 59%/41% run-pass split (the focus being a more effective run game, not more run plays).  So 59 more pass plays. 

 

Knox and Singletary had 44 and 50 targets, respectively.  If all those 59 pass plays went to Knox, he could clearly have >100 targets without taking a thing away from anyone else.

 

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a Happy Valentine's Day" (wait - is that not how it goes?) but I think the underlying point is clear.  Realistically, the Bills could have more offensive plays without even exceeding what a team actually did last season, and those plays gotta go to someone.  Since Diggs and Beasley rightfully draw a lot of defensive traffic, if we had a reliable TE (an improved Knox, a pass catching RB etc) it's probably not unrealistic to think they could be the beneficiaries.

Understand your point but WRT the bolded, this fails to account for the normal distribution of targets in our offense. Each new play or target would be scattered among our other receivers. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Understand your point but WRT the bolded, this fails to account for the normal distribution of targets in our offense. Each new play or target would be scattered among our other receivers. 

 

I don't think it's a good assumption at all that each new play or target would be "scattered among our other receivers".  

 

Defenses skew coverage towards the receivers on a team who make the most receptions.  It's not gonna change that if you leave Diggs or Beasley open, they're the most dangerous weapons on our offense.  Therefore it's reasonable to believe that improvements on offense would come by finding other open targets more often. 

 

Film shows that Knox and the RB are open a lot when Diggs and Beasley are bracketed, so more throws to them (or to a more reliable pass-receiving upgrade at their positions) is an entirely reasonable expectation vs. a random (scattered) distribution.

 

Be that as it may, the underlying point is that additional receptions could reasonably be found without taking receptions away from our best guys, even without breaking any NFL offensive records.

[GunnerBill]

49 minutes ago, Solomon Grundy said:

Titans don't have that QB that can put a team on its shoulders and win games. Let's be real, Tannehill is a good QB but he's not on Allen/Watson level. Without Henry, he's average at best. Personally, I think Watt is doing his inner Tom Brady right now. He's going over team rosters and seeing where he can provide an impact while winning. Also talking to people/players about  organizations epititude. Brian Gaine may be a big player in bringing Watt to Buffalo. I'd like to know how their relationship was. 

 

I agree Tenn are more limited at Quarterback but they are a very solid roster. 5 winning seasons in a row all while being Quarterbacked by Mariota or Tannehill. You don't do that if you don't have a decent collection of talent around them. I think they get a little underrated myself. Their GM is one of the best around.

[FireChans]

4 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't think it's a good assumption at all that each new play or target would be "scattered among our other receivers".  

 

Defenses skew coverage towards the receivers on a team who make the most receptions.  It's not gonna change that if you leave Diggs or Beasley open, they're the most dangerous weapons on our offense.  Therefore it's reasonable to believe that improvements on offense would come by finding other open targets more often. 

 

Film shows that Knox and the RB are open a lot when Diggs and Beasley are bracketed, so more throws to them (or to a more reliable pass-receiving upgrade at their positions) is an entirely reasonable expectation vs. a random (scattered) distribution.

 

Be that as it may, the underlying point is that additional receptions could reasonably be found without taking receptions away from our best guys, even without breaking any NFL offensive records.

See I believe the exact opposite. Your goal on offense is to get the ball to the most dangerous weapons you have.

 

If we had 50 more targets, I’d want at least half going to Diggs because he’s the most dangerous we have.

 

Its like when we traded for Diggs. Some folks wanted him to “open up things for Beasley and Brown.” Not me. I wanted him to get 12 targets a game. Because that’s why you have a guy like him. And lo and behold.

[HappyDays]

3 hours ago, Solomon Grundy said:

Titans don't have that QB that can put a team on its shoulders and win games. Let's be real, Tannehill is a good QB but he's not on Allen/Watson level. Without Henry, he's average at best. Personally, I think Watt is doing his inner Tom Brady right now. He's going over team rosters and seeing where he can provide an impact while winning. Also talking to people/players about  organizations epititude. Brian Gaine may be a big player in bringing Watt to Buffalo. I'd like to know how their relationship was. 

 

Mike Vrabel was the Texans DC from 2017 to 2018. If Watt liked him as a coach that gives the Titans the edge. I would bet on them right now, followed by the Packers, followed by the Bills. 

Edited February 14, 2021 by HappyDays

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 minutes ago, FireChans said:

See I believe the exact opposite. Your goal on offense is to get the ball to the most dangerous weapons you have.

 

If we had 50 more targets, I’d want at least half going to Diggs because he’s the most dangerous we have.

 

Its like when we traded for Diggs. Some folks wanted him to “open up things for Beasley and Brown.” Not me. I wanted him to get 12 targets a game. Because that’s why you have a guy like him. And lo and behold.

 

The defense gets paid too.  You can believe and want what you like, the defense is going to focus on taking away the best weapons.

 

What do the phrases "take what the defense gives you" and "he didn't take what the defense gave him" mean to you?

 

Diggs averaged 10.6 targets per game this year and is already making tough contested catches where he gets slammed immediately afterwards.  The whole point of this is what can be done without DECREASING that.   If Diggs were open an additional 3x per game, Josh would already be targeting him an additional 3x per game.  If Josh targets him 3 more times when he's not open, there are several things that can happen and most of them are bad.

 

On the other hand, if another target is utilized then lo and behold the lightbulb goes off on defense and they say "uh oh - if we double Diggs plus a robber and bracket Beasley, that TE's gonna go off" or "that RB's gonna kill us with YAC from the dump-off" and more stuff for Diggs opens up.  This is Football 101.

 

I'm outta here.

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The defense gets paid too.  You can believe and want what you like, the defense is going to focus on taking away the best weapons.

 

What do the phrases "take what the defense gives you" and "he didn't take what the defense gave him" mean to you?

 

Diggs averaged 10.6 targets per game this year and is already making tough contested catches where he gets slammed immediately afterwards.  The whole point of this is what can be done without DECREASING that.   If Diggs were open an additional 3x per game, Josh would already be targeting him an additional 3x per game.  If Josh targets him 3 more times when he's not open, there are several things that can happen and most of them are bad.

 

On the other hand, if another target is utilized then lo and behold the lightbulb goes off on defense and they say "uh oh - if we double Diggs plus a robber and bracket Beasley, that TE's gonna go off" or "that RB's gonna kill us with YAC from the dump-off" and more stuff for Diggs opens up.  This is Football 101.

 

I'm outta here.

Do you really think teams weren’t trying to take aways Diggs all year?

 

Why do we bemoan how defenders can’t really play defense and then target some mediocre TE instead of your best offensive threat because they are “focusing” on him?

[Shaw66]

22 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

My concern is he has player his whole career in a very different scheme. I'm not sure at this stage in his career if you can suddenly make him an outside edge rusher in a 4-3 and expect him to be that guy that puts us over the top. That said, I love JJ Watt and for the right contract I'd do it. Is he willing to take below what he could get on the open market to chase a ring? If he is, then come on down.

You may be right about that.  So far as I can tell, 3-4 guys and 4-3 guys are different body types and have significantly different standard assignments.  I'm not a coach and I don't really know, but I have two counters to your comment that make me think the 3-4 vs 4-3 thing is not all that important.  The two counters are Watt and McDermott themselves. 

 

Can't say I've studied Watt all that carefully.  I watch the Bills and whatever other games I happen to be interested in.  However, it's my impression the the Texans moved Watt all over the line.  They asked him to do a lot of different things, and he could do pretty much anything they asked.   He is, I think, one of those transcendent football players - just put him on the field and let him play.  At any given time there may be a half dozen players like that in the game, usually fewer.  Watt's the kind of guy McDermott wants, a guy with superior physical abilities who also is a consummate student of the game.   Watt understands line play like few guys in the league.  So I think he's a guy who can make the shift from 3-4 and find some position, probably multiple positions, where he can be an impact player.   After all, McDermott's fundamental objective for his defensive linemen is win your battle, and Watt has been outstanding in that category, wherever he lines up. 

 

As for McDermott, he want versatility in his players.  Versatile players allow him to complicate his scheme.  Remember that Watt would be platooned.  It seems likely to me that he could adapt to and play the three tech or either of the defensive end slots.  He might even be able to play Watt as the one tech on spot duty, just to mix things up.   

 

Bottom line, I think Watt would bring almost a unique skill set for a defensive lineman, and McDermott loves to put guys like that to work.  After all, that's why he wanted Edmunds - he wants guys who can do things on the field that others can't.   McDermott is confident that he can make unique players assets.  

[JGMcD2]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Interesting assessment and comparison to Baseball scouting.  I think some people said a similar thing, years ago, about Stevie Johnson - that he had been the Bills #1 WR, but that he would no way be the #1 WR on a team with a top-tier offense.  And in fact, when he went to San Francisco, he was their #3 behind Boldin and Crabtree.

 

And we do the same thing here periodically, talking about how many players we have on offense or defense who would start on other teams.

 

Anyway, I'd like to hone in on the part I quoted above.  I don't think it's at all the "zero sum game" you portray above "there are only so many targets to go around".  I think our offense has room to become a better offense with more targets overall. 

 

For realism, let's look at the best teams in different categories this season and how the Bills stack up to them.  The Bills were #2 in offensive yards, with 310 fewer yards than KC.  Probably some room for more plays there - let's look.  Yes, in fact the Bills were #15 (!!!!) for offensive plays, with 93 fewer plays there than the #1 team, the Chargers.  We were #27 for offensive penalties, with 40 more than the least-penalized team. 

 

Let's say for ease of calculation, we could have 100 more offensive plays (between #15 for offensive plays and #27 for penalties, clearly room to improve).  Let's say we maintain the same 59%/41% run-pass split (the focus being a more effective run game, not more run plays).  So 59 more pass plays. 

 

Knox and Singletary had 44 and 50 targets, respectively.  If all those 59 pass plays went to Knox, he could clearly have >100 targets without taking a thing away from anyone else.

 

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a Happy Valentine's Day" (wait - is that not how it goes?) but I think the underlying point is clear.  Realistically, the Bills could have more offensive plays without even exceeding what a team actually did last season, and those plays gotta go to someone.  Since Diggs and Beasley rightfully draw a lot of defensive traffic, if we had a reliable TE (an improved Knox, a pass catching RB etc) it's probably not unrealistic to think they could be the beneficiaries.

Yup. You nailed exactly what I was talking about with Stevie. He was one of my favorite players and damn good, but wasn’t elite. In his prime he was a great #2 option on a contender IMO. 
 

The only thing with the Chargers example after taking a quick look at plays this year - the Chargers were the upper limit in offensive plays. Only team over 1100 plays from just looking quick. 
 

The rest of the league ran somewhere between 950 - 1100 plays this year. I’ll do a good look back over the last 10 years but I’m pretty confident that there are a finite amount of targets to go around and it’s going to be in that range. You’re not going to be able to stretch it too much more than where we were this year. This season is likely in Q3... there might be a few more plays out there but I don’t think we can reasonably run too many more consistently to get enough targets to give someone other than Diggs and Beasley that volume.