Florida Bills Fanatic Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 11 hours ago, IgotBILLStopay said: TB returns 22 starters who won em the Superbowl. And the Bucs and Billls have both treaded water this off-season. Bills lost to KC last season - TWICE. At this point at least these two teams have more complete rosters. Clearly Beane is still not satisfied - why create additional cap room if you are satisfied with the roster? I agree with you. Beane probably created the extra cap space to be able to react to a variety of potential situations (replacing injuries, chasing a good free agent, pulling off a trade). I just don't believe he is actively locked in on getting any of the high profile/high cost players that may come available. I believe that he is just getting prepared for any eventuality that may occur during the season. It's just smart to have some cap money available.
Dr.Sack Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 Going to need a pass rush, RB & TE production to claim the top spot.
1ManRaid Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 13 hours ago, SCBills said: This. Buffalo has one of, if not, the most complete rosters in the NFL. Average/Above-Average talent across the board, with solid depth and two elite pieces in Josh Allen and Stefon Diggs. KC beat us in the AFCCG by being healthier, some luck in how the game was officiated, but mainly due to having more gamebreakers.. Mahomes, Hill and Kelce on Offense and Chris Jones on Defense just collapsing our interior OL. The way we match that is for Josh Allen to continue to improve, the Offense to become more well rounded and for this Defense to become a top unit again.. and with the current investment, if we're not, something has got to give - there is no reason for them to not be a top notch Defensive Unit. On Offense, Ertz certainly seems to be the logical player that takes a TE room as a weakness, and potentially makes it a strength when Dawson Knox is your #2. Would just need to get the running game going and it's off to the races. Don't think much of Tre?
Arm of Harm Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 (edited) In the weeks leading up to the draft, there was a lot of discussion about how the Bills should use their first and second round picks. Among the opinions presented: #2 CB RB (due to the disappointing running game) OG or C (due to the disappointing running game) WR (Beasley and especially Sanders are on the wrong side of 30) TE Pass rushing DL One tech DT There was validity to pretty much all the opinions mentioned above. So . . . what did the Bills do about the above list of needs? For pass rushing DL they signed Obada (5.5 sacks last year and a fairly young guy), while using their first and second round picks on pass rushing DL. There were other free agent signings, such as Hollister and Lamp and Sanders and Breida. Not everything on the bulleted list is a hole. But with that many question marks going into the draft, anointing ourselves the team with the least holes seems a bit ambitious. Sure there's a chance the Bills do turn out to be the team with the least holes. Maybe Harrison returns to pre-injury form, maybe Star has a good year, maybe Sanders experiences no age-related decline, maybe our two early DL picks contribute much more than Epinesa did last year, maybe the light bulb comes on for Lamp, maybe Knox becomes more consistent, maybe someone steps up at #2 CB, maybe Breida turns out to be exactly the spark the running game needed. All that stuff could happen. More likely, some of those maybes will turn out the way we want, while others won't. Edited June 3, 2021 by Arm of Harm 2
Ethan in Cleveland Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 19 minutes ago, Arm of Harm said: In the weeks leading up to the draft, there was a lot of discussion about how the Bills should use their first and second round picks. Among the opinions presented: #2 CB RB (due to the disappointing running game) OG or C (due to the disappointing running game) WR (Beasley and especially Sanders are on the wrong side of 30) TE Pass rushing DL One tech DT There was validity to pretty much all the opinions mentioned above. So . . . what did the Bills do about the above list of needs? For pass rushing DL they signed Obada (5.5 sacks last year and a fairly young guy), while using their first and second round picks on pass rushing DL. There were other free agent signings, such as Hollister and Lamp and Sanders and Breida. Not everything on the bulleted list is a hole. But with that many question marks going into the draft, anointing ourselves the team with the least holes seems a bit ambitious. Sure there's a chance the Bills do turn out to be the team with the least holes. Maybe Harrison returns to pre-injury form, maybe Star has a good year, maybe Sanders experiences no age-related decline, maybe our two early DL picks contribute much more than Epinesa did last year, maybe the light bulb comes on for Lamp, maybe Knox becomes more consistent, maybe someone steps up at #2 CB, maybe Breida turns out to be exactly the spark the running game needed. All that stuff could happen. More likely, some of those maybes will turn out the way we want, while others won't. Nice post. Different perspective in responding to the OP. As you said not everything was a hole and RB or WR were more luxury picks if made in the first round as opposed to true needs.
GunnerBill Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 5 hours ago, DCofNC said: So there’s a little question at corner, where the Bills starter opposite White is ???? I’ll go Dane Jackson, but that’s a wash at best. Until proven otherwise, the Bills have nobody that can match Clark and a bag of chips, so again, push at best. The Bills have 3 guys on the line who even stand a chance to start on a real team, I’d trade centers with KC in a heartbeat, so I guess we will agree to disagree on that one. literally everywhere else, KC is clearly better than Buffalo, the only possible argument being at S, and to Bills homers only at QB. I still love how people can say Maholmes had arguably the best season a QB has ever had, in his first year and backed it with MVP level play again, yet Allen is clearly the better play.. You are confusing my point. I am talking about holes. Holes being spots where a team has someone who is unproven as an NFL level starter at the spot pencilled in to start - the Bills return 21 of their 22 starters (everyone except John Brown who has been replaced by a proven vet). Kansas City has lost starters in spots where as a result they will start rookies or guys who have lost starting jobs elsewhere. That is a hole. I am not arguing the Bills are better. Case in point - I don't disagree that Frank Clark is a better proven defensive end than anyone on the Bills to the extent that he makes up for the fact they are weak at the other end spot - but the other end spot is still a hole.
iccrewman112 Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 21 hours ago, GunnerBill said: We have had this debate numerous times this offseason in different forms. The Bills have the fewest "holes" in the AFC. KC has more elite talent. Cleveland’s roster may have something to say about that. Top to bottom they are loaded after free agency and the draft.
GunnerBill Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 1 minute ago, iccrewman112 said: Cleveland’s roster may have something to say about that. Top to bottom they are loaded after free agency and the draft. I agree they could, but my point was not to assume rookies are answers. It was the Bills having the fewest holes without proven NFL starters. Cleveland has some spots where they will start rookies. Rookies I like, but rookies all the same. In a year's time we may be talking about Cleveland having fewest holes on the AFC side.
Niagara Dude Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 23 hours ago, Tipster19 said: If you look at their roster from top to bottom the Bills are the most complete team in the NFL. The weakest position imo is the TE position but if the Bills do make a move for Ertz this position would be solidified as well. In addition I love the continuity of the core of roster and of the coaches. Barring injuries and regression I would think that more of the national pundits would have the Bills to be the team to beat. I suppose one could make a case for Tampa as well but them being in the NFC should definitely make the Bills the top team in the AFC at the very least. Big difference is the Bills have solid players at almost all positions, they just don't have enough difference/impact players. I think maybe White on defence and Allen & Diggs on offence. KC is better just because if that, they have more impact players on both sides on the ball. For the Bills to get by KC I still think they need a guy who can get to QB and the type of player that teams need to game plan for.
SCBills Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 10 hours ago, 1ManRaid said: Don't think much of Tre? I think he's a top tier corner, but not Jalen Ramsey. More of a lockdown corner than a playmaker. He's probably elite, but I don't see him as disruptive like Mathieu, Jones and Clark are for the KC Defense.
Tipster19 Posted June 3, 2021 Author Posted June 3, 2021 I’ve waited 4 pages and 70 responses and unfortunately nobody has even discussed what I originally referred to as the most complete TEAM. Everybody has talked about specific players/positions/roster but nothing has been mentioned about the chemistry and continuity of players and staff, which to me is a big part of being a team. Like I said Tampa is the only other team that is worthy of being in that conversation.
klos63 Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 On 6/2/2021 at 5:25 AM, Tipster19 said: If you look at their roster from top to bottom the Bills are the most complete team in the NFL. The weakest position imo is the TE position but if the Bills do make a move for Ertz this position would be solidified as well. In addition I love the continuity of the core of roster and of the coaches. Barring injuries and regression I would think that more of the national pundits would have the Bills to be the team to beat. I suppose one could make a case for Tampa as well but them being in the NFC should definitely make the Bills the top team in the AFC at the very least. Our defense was subpar most of the season. Trouble stopping the run, not much of a pass rush.... we didn't end the season with a championship level defense. Our draft picks and the return of Star may have a big impact, but until it does, we are not the most complete team.
SCBills Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 9 hours ago, Arm of Harm said: In the weeks leading up to the draft, there was a lot of discussion about how the Bills should use their first and second round picks. Among the opinions presented: #2 CB RB (due to the disappointing running game) OG or C (due to the disappointing running game) WR (Beasley and especially Sanders are on the wrong side of 30) TE Pass rushing DL One tech DT There was validity to pretty much all the opinions mentioned above. So . . . what did the Bills do about the above list of needs? For pass rushing DL they signed Obada (5.5 sacks last year and a fairly young guy), while using their first and second round picks on pass rushing DL. There were other free agent signings, such as Hollister and Lamp and Sanders and Breida. Not everything on the bulleted list is a hole. But with that many question marks going into the draft, anointing ourselves the team with the least holes seems a bit ambitious. Sure there's a chance the Bills do turn out to be the team with the least holes. Maybe Harrison returns to pre-injury form, maybe Star has a good year, maybe Sanders experiences no age-related decline, maybe our two early DL picks contribute much more than Epinesa did last year, maybe the light bulb comes on for Lamp, maybe Knox becomes more consistent, maybe someone steps up at #2 CB, maybe Breida turns out to be exactly the spark the running game needed. All that stuff could happen. More likely, some of those maybes will turn out the way we want, while others won't. I think people on this board both wildly underestimate and overestimate this team... What you listed are certainly valid discussion points, but we have solid players and/or justifiable potential at those spots. What we don't have is the elite talent to match up with KC. Seems that for 2021, the staff is betting on Josh Allen being Patrick Mahomes equal and our Defense having a bounce back year with all the investment and continuity that's been poured into it.
Beerball Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 On 6/2/2021 at 8:25 AM, Tipster19 said: If you look at their roster from top to bottom the Bills are the most complete team in the NFL. The weakest position imo is the TE position but if the Bills do make a move for Ertz this position would be solidified as well. In addition I love the continuity of the core of roster and of the coaches. Barring injuries and regression I would think that more of the national pundits would have the Bills to be the team to beat. I suppose one could make a case for Tampa as well but them being in the NFC should definitely make the Bills the top team in the AFC at the very least. False.
Arm of Harm Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 13 hours ago, Ethan in Portland said: Nice post. Different perspective in responding to the OP. As you said not everything was a hole and RB or WR were more luxury picks if made in the first round as opposed to true needs. Thanks for the kind words. I personally was of the belief that the Bills should have taken a WR. While WR does not appear to be a need this year it very much could be next year. Sanders is on a one year deal and is an aging, declining player. On the other hand I think the players Beane chose instead have great potential and could be really good pass rushers (high value position). While I think you could fully justify WR I agree that RB would have been a luxury pick. 1
Arm of Harm Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 8 hours ago, GunnerBill said: I agree they could, but my point was not to assume rookies are answers. It was the Bills having the fewest holes without proven NFL starters. Cleveland has some spots where they will start rookies. Rookies I like, but rookies all the same. In a year's time we may be talking about Cleveland having fewest holes on the AFC side. One question worth asking is, how do you define a hole? Let’s say for example that a player is the NFL’s 25th best TE, or the 25th best left offensive guard. The player is at least a known quantity, and his level of play is maybe plausible. But he’s not someone you want as a long-term answer. So, is his position a hole or isn’t it? That’s a question which could reasonably be argued either way.
GunnerBill Posted June 3, 2021 Posted June 3, 2021 40 minutes ago, Arm of Harm said: One question worth asking is, how do you define a hole? Let’s say for example that a player is the NFL’s 25th best TE, or the 25th best left offensive guard. The player is at least a known quantity, and his level of play is maybe plausible. But he’s not someone you want as a long-term answer. So, is his position a hole or isn’t it? That’s a question which could reasonably be argued either way. I was clear how I interpret it. Someone who is proven as a starter in the NFL. If someone has had a starter job and lost it to be a backup and is now being asked to start again he doesn't count.
DCofNC Posted June 4, 2021 Posted June 4, 2021 16 hours ago, GunnerBill said: You are confusing my point. I am talking about holes. Holes being spots where a team has someone who is unproven as an NFL level starter at the spot pencilled in to start - the Bills return 21 of their 22 starters (everyone except John Brown who has been replaced by a proven vet). Kansas City has lost starters in spots where as a result they will start rookies or guys who have lost starting jobs elsewhere. That is a hole. I am not arguing the Bills are better. Case in point - I don't disagree that Frank Clark is a better proven defensive end than anyone on the Bills to the extent that he makes up for the fact they are weak at the other end spot - but the other end spot is still a hole. Fair enough, if that’s the perspective you are working from, your argument holds water. I disagree with the assertion the Bills have less holes, but I believe the Bills have clear holes at DE, 1Tech DT, RG, LG, TE, RB1, CB2. My definition of a hole is a below league average at a position or an unproven player taking the starting role, ie rookie. For me, the Bills lack a LOT of talent at key positions, JA covered a lot of it last year, but when the heat got turned up, it became more obvious.
Arm of Harm Posted June 4, 2021 Posted June 4, 2021 3 hours ago, GunnerBill said: I was clear how I interpret it. Someone who is proven as a starter in the NFL. If someone has had a starter job and lost it to be a backup and is now being asked to start again he doesn't count. Okay that's fair. Let's say Team A has a coach who likes to pick his starters and stick with them through good or bad. Whereas Team B has a coach who is quick to bench poorly performing players, and quick to give starting positions to backups who look good in practice. By your definition Team B is going to appear to have a lot more holes than Team A. The type of definition I'd prefer would be based on the following question. Suppose you were to merge your team with a team that was at the 25th percentile at every position. (Meaning it was better than 1/4 of NFL teams at each position, but worse than 3/4.) How many of your starters would be starters on this merged team? If one of your starters wouldn't start for the merged team, his position is a hole. Obviously my selection of 25th percentile was completely arbitrary. You could make it 10th percentile, or 40th, or whatever other number makes you happy. But the point is that's necessary to pick a number, to draw the line somewhere. Any starter who falls below the line is a hole who needs to be filled. In some cases you just don't know. A team uses a top 10 pick on a QB. Will his rookie year look like Justin Herbert's? Or will it look like Tua's? If there isn't enough data to answer that question then to me that's not a hole. That's a question mark. A hole is where you know a player needs to be replaced, like Kelvin Benjamin. A question mark is a player who has a legitimate, solid shot at being your long-term answer, but who might also turn out to be a bust.
Recommended Posts