Voice of the Eagles Merrill Reese: the word is Bills are close to finalizing deal with Zach Ertz

[Coach Tuesday]

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

2 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

OK, but where do we send the angry horde?

*
Reese's house?

Talbot's house?

Parrino's house?

Not our Yolo's house!?!

🤔

 

[Fan in Chicago]

1 hour ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

 

Here we go again. Who are these "sources"? 

[Rochesterfan]

57 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Yes true but wouldn’t you think that we would go to Ertz more?  Beane said we essentially got nothing out of our TE last year and doesn’t sound out of design.  Being that we supposedly want Ertz, we want to change that.

 

I certainly think he won’t have the elite numbers as he did in Philly because like you say, Philly didn’t have as many weapons….but also didn’t have the QB.  I think around 50-55 catches is accurate.  I think he would be closer to 600 yards.  I think a little more TD’s as well.

 

It depends upon where those catches are coming from.  Zach Ertz is not as good of a receiving threat as Diggs, Beasley, Sanders, or Gabriel Davis - so with the limited number of passes per game (averaged 38 last year) - 

 

Diggs - ~ 11 per game

Sanders - ~ 6 per game

Beasley - ~ 7 per game

Davis - ~ 4 per game

RB’s and McKenzie -~ 5 per game

That leaves you about 5 targets per games and if they all went to Ertz with his career catch % that would get him 50 catches.  My guess is he would not be the only TE targeted so probably 1/3 go to Knox, Hollister, Sweeney- so Ertz would be in the 35 catch range. 
 

If we want him in the 50-55 catch range - then you are pulling targets from Beasley, Sanders, and Davis to feed Ertz and that is a net negative to the offense.  I also do not want to give up assets or pay significant money to Ertz for a 50 catch season.  That is what we got from the TEs last year at a better rate of return with no added cost.

 

I agree that the FO said they got little out of the TE, but they also said the running game struggled and they wanted to improve, but brought back the same o-line and RBs basically.  So yes I think they would like more out of the TE position, but I am not sure it comes from an acquisition like Ertz more an adjustment to game planning.

 

I guess the final thing I would say about this is if I am an opposing defense - I would rather see the Bills throw to Ertz over Diggs, Beasley, Sanders and Davis.  I wouldn’t really adjust coverage to accommodate for Ertz because he is less of a threat than those other guys.  He is also less of a blocker than the other TEs so he helps less on the running plays.  If we decided to run more 2 TE sets you are pulling talented WRs off the field for lesser players including Ertz.  In Philadelphia- Ertz was the best receiver they had for several years or at least top 2 which is why he got the targets.  In Buffalo he comes in as the 5th best target at best and should get targets commensurate with that level of talent.
 

 

 

[Blank Stare]

 

This trade has been sourced and rumored for so long. Has to be some kind of record. 

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

 

 

I propose that if Ertz is not traded to the Bills in the next 48 hours, we all agree to stop posting rumors from this fake account.

[Paul Costa]

16 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I propose that if Ertz is not traded to the Bills in the next 48 hours, we all agree to stop posting rumors from this fake account.

My only question is where do Beasley’s targets go if he retires?

[Royale with Cheese]

14 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

It depends upon where those catches are coming from.  Zach Ertz is not as good of a receiving threat as Diggs, Beasley, Sanders, or Gabriel Davis - so with the limited number of passes per game (averaged 38 last year) - 

 

Diggs - ~ 11 per game

Sanders - ~ 6 per game

Beasley - ~ 7 per game

Davis - ~ 4 per game

RB’s and McKenzie -~ 5 per game

That leaves you about 5 targets per games and if they all went to Ertz with his career catch % that would get him 50 catches.  My guess is he would not be the only TE targeted so probably 1/3 go to Knox, Hollister, Sweeney- so Ertz would be in the 35 catch range. 
 

If we want him in the 50-55 catch range - then you are pulling targets from Beasley, Sanders, and Davis to feed Ertz and that is a net negative to the offense.  I also do not want to give up assets or pay significant money to Ertz for a 50 catch season.  That is what we got from the TEs last year at a better rate of return with no added cost.

 

I agree that the FO said they got little out of the TE, but they also said the running game struggled and they wanted to improve, but brought back the same o-line and RBs basically.  So yes I think they would like more out of the TE position, but I am not sure it comes from an acquisition like Ertz more an adjustment to game planning.

 

I guess the final thing I would say about this is if I am an opposing defense - I would rather see the Bills throw to Ertz over Diggs, Beasley, Sanders and Davis.  I wouldn’t really adjust coverage to accommodate for Ertz because he is less of a threat than those other guys.  He is also less of a blocker than the other TEs so he helps less on the running plays.  If we decided to run more 2 TE sets you are pulling talented WRs off the field for lesser players including Ertz.  In Philadelphia- Ertz was the best receiver they had for several years or at least top 2 which is why he got the targets.  In Buffalo he comes in as the 5th best target at best and should get targets commensurate with that level of talent.
 

 

 

 

I certainly think Diggs catches will drop this season.  His 127 catches last year was 6th all time so I think you can expect a slight drop but he's also Diggs...who knows.

I don't think we necessarily have to think that getting more targets to Ertz means everyone else will have have a reduced number.  We were at 46% 3rd down conversion which I believe was around 5th and 15th in total offensive plays.  If we move the ball even better....that's more opportunities for everyone.

https://www.footballdb.com/stats/play-selection.html

I don't think Ertz is that game breaker, vertical threat.  I think he's the chain mover and redzone target.  

 

[TheyCallMeAndy]

That NFL Rumors Twitter page is just hot garbage

[ghostwriter]

35 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I propose that if Ertz is not traded to the Bills in the next 48 hours, we all agree to stop posting rumors from this fake account.

I think it’s going to happen within the next week or so. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Beane did free up quite a bit of cap space as well when he converted much of Diggs salary into a bonus, so clearly he’s making room for a reason. 

[Heitz]

Which do get get first - Ertz or Dr Dre's Detox?

 

To be fair we DID get G'nR's Chinese Democracy, just took a million years and didn't quite have the permanence of their other records.  Much like Ertz I'm sure...

[HappyDays]

5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

The guy is so green the fact he wasn't particularly good last year doesn't tell you whether or not he'll be good this year.

 

Yeah he could develop. He has all the tools. But this team is too good to cross our fingers on an important position that has given us well below average production over the past two seasons. This isnt the drought era Bills, we don't need to convince ourselves bad players are sure to get better. Knox last year was a bad player. And personally I didn't see him show any kind of meaningful progress that makes me think he is trending upwards. I'd love to see him take a big step forward this year but I'm not banking on it. Ertz would be an immediate upgrade.

 

I have a similar concern with Edmunds but I don't see an immediate way to upgrade him. And at least Edmunds showed progress from 2018 to 2019, before regressing last year after his injury. I haven't seen that progress from Knox at any point.

[Boxcar]

2 hours ago, Billsatlastin2018 said:

I agree. Beasley made HIMSELF the issue. Now that the Bills can gain almost a foot in height for the cold, windy, snowy half of the Season at O.P., I am delighted. Get er done and see you, anti vax fool!

Yes, that was the problem, Beasley not catching the ball when it was thrown his way. What a genius.

 

May I also remind the militant vaxxers that Beasley played on a freaking broken leg for this team. Just because you disagree with him on one issue doesn't mean that now he's some expendable, average player who doesn't care about the team. He's the second best receiver on a top 3 offense, and the best slot receiver in the NFL.

 

An Ertz acquisition has nothing to do with Beasley considering they have been trying to get him for months.

[Southern Bills Fan]

I think it's a mistake to spend that kind of money on Ertz. His best years are behind him and he's less of a downfield threat than Knox and Hollister and he doesn't block. I trust Beane though and if he does trade for him I hope it works out.

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

It depends upon where those catches are coming from.  Zach Ertz is not as good of a receiving threat as Diggs, Beasley, Sanders, or Gabriel Davis - so with the limited number of passes per game (averaged 38 last year) - 

 

Diggs - ~ 11 per game

Sanders - ~ 6 per game

Beasley - ~ 7 per game

Davis - ~ 4 per game

RB’s and McKenzie -~ 5 per game

That leaves you about 5 targets per games and if they all went to Ertz with his career catch % that would get him 50 catches.  My guess is he would not be the only TE targeted so probably 1/3 go to Knox, Hollister, Sweeney- so Ertz would be in the 35 catch range. 
 

If we want him in the 50-55 catch range - then you are pulling targets from Beasley, Sanders, and Davis to feed Ertz and that is a net negative to the offense.  I also do not want to give up assets or pay significant money to Ertz for a 50 catch season.  That is what we got from the TEs last year at a better rate of return with no added cost.

 

I agree that the FO said they got little out of the TE, but they also said the running game struggled and they wanted to improve, but brought back the same o-line and RBs basically.  So yes I think they would like more out of the TE position, but I am not sure it comes from an acquisition like Ertz more an adjustment to game planning.

 

I guess the final thing I would say about this is if I am an opposing defense - I would rather see the Bills throw to Ertz over Diggs, Beasley, Sanders and Davis.  I wouldn’t really adjust coverage to accommodate for Ertz because he is less of a threat than those other guys.  He is also less of a blocker than the other TEs so he helps less on the running plays.  If we decided to run more 2 TE sets you are pulling talented WRs off the field for lesser players including Ertz.  In Philadelphia- Ertz was the best receiver they had for several years or at least top 2 which is why he got the targets.  In Buffalo he comes in as the 5th best target at best and should get targets commensurate with that level of talent.
 

 

 

I am skeptical Sanders gets 6 targets a game.  While he’s a good addition, he’s also not as productive anymore and has no experience with Josh or Daboll complicated offense.  I expect Davis to start over him personally.  
 

Ertz won’t be featured like Philly when he was a key focal point, we just have too many other weapons.  The importance of Ertz is to have a reliable guy who makes plays when called upon.   He is also a great mentor for Knox too.  
 

End of the day, Ertz will be a fantastic add to this team giving Allen another weapon who can be counted on that the defense has to respect and that can contribute to Knox reaching his potential too.  
 

His year end totals don’t matter, he makes this team better by just being on the roster.  I would 100% prefer to have Ertz at TE when we face teams like KC, Cle, or Titans in the AFCCG with a Super Bowl birth on the line.  

 

Get it done Beane.  

[Figster]

1 hour ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

It depends upon where those catches are coming from.  Zach Ertz is not as good of a receiving threat as Diggs, Beasley, Sanders, or Gabriel Davis - so with the limited number of passes per game (averaged 38 last year) - 

 

Diggs - ~ 11 per game

Sanders - ~ 6 per game

Beasley - ~ 7 per game

Davis - ~ 4 per game

RB’s and McKenzie -~ 5 per game

That leaves you about 5 targets per games and if they all went to Ertz with his career catch % that would get him 50 catches.  My guess is he would not be the only TE targeted so probably 1/3 go to Knox, Hollister, Sweeney- so Ertz would be in the 35 catch range. 
 

If we want him in the 50-55 catch range - then you are pulling targets from Beasley, Sanders, and Davis to feed Ertz and that is a net negative to the offense.  I also do not want to give up assets or pay significant money to Ertz for a 50 catch season.  That is what we got from the TEs last year at a better rate of return with no added cost.

 

I agree that the FO said they got little out of the TE, but they also said the running game struggled and they wanted to improve, but brought back the same o-line and RBs basically.  So yes I think they would like more out of the TE position, but I am not sure it comes from an acquisition like Ertz more an adjustment to game planning.

 

I guess the final thing I would say about this is if I am an opposing defense - I would rather see the Bills throw to Ertz over Diggs, Beasley, Sanders and Davis.  I wouldn’t really adjust coverage to accommodate for Ertz because he is less of a threat than those other guys.  He is also less of a blocker than the other TEs so he helps less on the running plays.  If we decided to run more 2 TE sets you are pulling talented WRs off the field for lesser players including Ertz.  In Philadelphia- Ertz was the best receiver they had for several years or at least top 2 which is why he got the targets.  In Buffalo he comes in as the 5th best target at best and should get targets commensurate with that level of talent.
 

 

 

The Bills O lacks physicality in my humble opinion. Josh Allen lacks a TE security blanket he feels is adequate enough to target. Erts helps in both area's IMO. 

 

The Chiefs manhandling of the Bills WR's showed just how one dimensional the Bills O has gotten IMO.

[Kelly the Dog]

Wait a minute, if the deal was being finalized, and the report was a week ago, aren’t we CLOSER to it happening?!!!!

[Paul Costa]

15 minutes ago, Southern Bills Fan said:

I think it's a mistake to spend that kind of money on Ertz. His best years are behind him and he's less of a downfield threat than Knox and Hollister and he doesn't block. I trust Beane though and if he does trade for him I hope it works out.

Agree 💯. If Beasley’s not coming back it should be flushed out though

[Boxcar]

2 minutes ago, Figster said:

The Bills O lacks physicality in my humble opinion. Josh Allen lacks a TE security blanket he feels is adequate enough to target. Erts helps in both area's IMO. 

 

The Chiefs manhandling of the Bills WR's showed just how one dimensional the Bills O has gotten IMO.

Literally every WR had a significant injury. That affects their ability to create separation. Beasley could barely walk.

[Warcodered]

3 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Wait a minute, if the deal was being finalized, and the report was a week ago, aren’t we CLOSER to it happening?!!!!