With Allen, can the Bills de-emphasize skill positions?

[Augie]

33 minutes ago, CaptnCoke11 said:

I hate the off-season… 

 

Me too!

 

The good news is…….we weren't thinking and talking about the draft in late October, like the dark old days. Yeah, lets fire everyone……. 

[Success]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

It's not like they haven't been spending the bulk of the top picks on D. The game changes and strategy has to adapt. The defense is currently good, not great or dominant (the stats are deceptive.) Nonetheless, that is good enough in today's game. If you can upgrade, by all means do so, but not if that means neglecting to spend high picks on supercharging the offense and increasing the oline talent. We're probably just going to disagree on the best way moving forward.

 

I'm never so sure of myself that I disrespect or dismiss an opposing opinion.  Your view may be just as good as mine, or a lot better. I appreciate the perspective.

 

I'm curious how KC will fare if they go on to face the Rams.  The Rams are kind of the team I'm talking about.  It just always seems like if you have a great pass rush, it's a total equalizer against a superior QB.

 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

If de-emphasizing the skill positions means they focus on the OL. Im fine with that. Once the line started playing better the offense was unstoppable. 

I'm fine with Diggs, Beasley, Davis and Knox as my top 4. I add a rookie in the first 3 rounds. I'd be fine with Sanders for another year too. And I add a TE#2 and get rid of Sweeney and Gilliam.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

40 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said:

I believe they should do the opposite.  The NE Patriots were able to take this approach because even only 5 years ago the NFL was a very different beast then it is today. IMO the Bills should double down on skill players for the offense.

 

Bottom line is that over the last 4 years KC has been more successful then NE and they  didn't do it by depriving Mahomes of elite offensive weapons.

 

That's true, but it's also true (what @Zerovoltz has said) that the Chiefs do kind of take a "Stars and Jags" approach.  They've got their stars (Hill and Kelce).  They've got their 1st round RB Edmunds-Helaire, who is not as good as Hunt was but the point is - he was a big investment of draft resources.  The rest, Hardman, Pringle, etc are JAGs who can play.

 

We need at least another star to pair with Diggs. 

 

As I said elsewhere, to my POV Brady had at least two "stars" for most of his tenure in NE.

[Dr. Who]

Just now, Success said:

 

I'm never so sure of myself that I disrespect or dismiss an opposing opinion.  Your view may be just as good as mine, or a lot better. I appreciate the perspective.

 

I'm curious how KC will fare if they go on to face the Rams.  The Rams are kind of the team I'm talking about.  It just always seems like if you have a great pass rush, it's a total equalizer against a superior QB.

 

A great pass rush gives even elite qbs trouble, obviously. Mahomes was pressured, but consistently escaped downfield. His running killed us. Top level pass rushers are difficult to get. You won't likely get one at #25. Not sure who is available in free agency, but that is certainly a position to inquire about. Josh Allen will make Buffalo a prime destination for anyone who wants a legit shot at a SB.

[Success]

3 minutes ago, Ethan in Portland said:

If de-emphasizing the skill positions means they focus on the OL. Im fine with that. Once the line started playing better the offense was unstoppable. 

I'm fine with Diggs, Beasley, Davis and Knox as my top 4. I add a rookie in the first 3 rounds. I'd be fine with Sanders for another year too. And I add a TE#2 and get rid of Sweeney and Gilliam.

 

I'm probably thinking more about both lines. This wasn't a "de-emphasize offense" thread. When you have a QB like Allen, the O-line should be a focus.  Protect that guy & keep him healthy.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

25 minutes ago, BrooklynBills said:

Pretty sure that was code for "Hey Joe and Brian, if you want Cole Beasley, you'll have to trade me something for him."

 

Ha!  And something OTHER than Saquan Barkley and his $7.2M (tieing threads together)

 

 

[78thealltimegreat]

Going to pound the table for Trey McBride at 25 an elite pass catching te to go with the finally developed Dawson Knox gives this O a flexibility it honestly has had before 

[Comebackkid]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Wes Welker, followed by Edelman

after Moss, Rob Gronkowski

Then they had a series of 1 year rentals in the 4k range - when you're a perennial championship contender with the GOAT at QB, it's easy to persuade an aging WR who can still play like Brandon Lloyd to come collect 100+ targets and 900 yds for you.

 

They were fortunate to develop Gronkowski  and keep him on a cheap contract for a long time.

 

At the end of his tenure there, I understood "not having enough weapons" was one of Tom's beefs, but they kept the larder pretty decently stocked for him most of his tenure.

 

NE cheaped it a lot on OL.  They had usually 3 really good guys and a bunch of fill-ins.  Their OL coach Dante Scarnecchia, Coach Scar, was a genius at whipping young or journeyman OLmen into shape and teaching them to hold in ways that weren't usually called.

 

My opinion: I live in fear that Brandon Beane will try to do what was done in Carolina, where they figured they didn't need an OL or great WR because Cam.  They rode him into the ground and ruined him.  Hopefully Beane learned What Not To Do.

 

To me that also sounds a lot like seattle and green bay.   (more so seattle)   You cant put everything on a great qb and expect him to hold up.   hopefully the Bills are able to see the writing on the wall from the past.  

[filthymcnasty08]

I think you can snag complimentary offensive pieces for "prove it" deals.

 

Where they're going to be FA's again in 1-2 years and they want that bump in production that comes with being in JA17's offense.  Sets them up big for the next round of FA.

 

I love DJ Chark for something like that. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I listened to Beano's presser today. He doesn't sound like a man de-emphasising offense. Indeed he said protecting Josh and solidifying the line was "a priority".

 

Imma gonna flag you over in the Beane presser thread in hopes of getting more details on what you heard.

 

But yes.  He said the OL was "something to build on", that it all starts with protecting Josh, and that part of protecting Josh is the run game.

He also said "Isaiah really helped the running game", make of that what you will.

[Chaos]

When Josh has time, he can destroy a defense as much as Brady, Rodgers or Mahomes.  A great o line will get us farther than upgrading the receiving corp. 

[Comebackkid]

Just now, Chaos said:

When Josh has time, he can destroy a defense as much as Brady, Rodgers or Mahomes.  A great o line will get us farther than upgrading the receiving corp. 

not to mention u have half a billion tied up in one player..it might prudent to protect that player the best you can.  

[Success]

I don't think the OP deserved a vomit emoji.  It's just a discussion topic.

 

The vomit emoji should be for something like, "I know we lose to the Pats, but Belichick is awesome!", or "I prefer mild wings."

 

[ghostwriter]

Brady had better targets than you think. Even in Tampa Bay, when both Godwin and Evans were out, they lost 9-0 to the Saints of all teams.

[WyoAZBillfan]

Brady benefited and won Super Bowls because his teams had very good defenses. Sure a few of those were due to a potent offense, bit his best offensive bowls were still carried by the D. 
just my .02 which means little and cost less. 

[Success]

1 hour ago, Victory Formation said:

Brady had better targets than you think. Even in Tampa Bay, when both Godwin and Evans were out, they lost 9-0 to the Saints of all teams.

 

The Bucs were kind of a different story. They were loaded at skill positions.

 

I didn't really expect the kind of negative reaction this one got.  It was just a discussion thought - the Pats definitely had a blueprint for their 2 decades of success, and it wasn't cheating, or investing too much capital in skill positions.  

 

The only thought I had was, is that worth emulating? Or do we forge our own path?

 

[RyanC883]

3 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

I would not want to de-emphasize skill positions, and Josh isn't Brady.  They have different skill sets despite both being great QBs.

 

I think Josh needs good WRs more than Brady did.

 

I would continue to pump assets at improving the offense, especially at skill positions.

 

 

 

I agree, but I would say Allen needs an OL at least as good as where we ended the end of the season, with a good center.  

 

We also need a better front 7. 

 

We could get by with 2 No.  2RBs.  we currently have one No. 2 in Motor, IMo

2 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

A great pass rush gives even elite qbs trouble, obviously. Mahomes was pressured, but consistently escaped downfield. His running killed us. Top level pass rushers are difficult to get. You won't likely get one at #25. Not sure who is available in free agency, but that is certainly a position to inquire about. Josh Allen will make Buffalo a prime destination for anyone who wants a legit shot at a SB.

 

Chandler Jones.   Then draft a DL when it’s BPA.  

[Chaos]

1 hour ago, WyoAZBillfan said:

Brady benefited and won Super Bowls because his teams had very good defenses. Sure a few of those were due to a potent offense, bit his best offensive bowls were still carried by the D. 
just my .02 which means little and cost less. 

This opinion is not worth the 2 cents.  7 Super Bowl wins are not a coincidence. 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

4 hours ago, Success said:

With Brady retiring, it got me thinking of how the Pats were when he was QB there.  We hate them, rightfully, but it's okay to look at success and try to figure out if what worked there could apply here now.

 

The Pats blueprint was actually kind of simple:  you get a franchise QB, and you build a big O-line to protect him, and a great defense to help him win championships. Because he's such a great QB, you put receivers way down the list of priorities, because he can basically make anyone a star.

 

The only exception they really made was getting Moss.  1 time in a 20 year career.  And it didn't get them a Lombardi.

 

The opposite is what we saw w/ Marino, or even Stafford when he was w/ the Lions - the QB is so good, we have to get him the best weapons before other priorities.

 

I love Diggs and the fact that we've put a high priority on getting quality wideouts for Allen.  But is it necessary?  Does a championship formula lie more in the counter-intuitive approach?

 

 

Agree for the most part.  To often team get in trouble by paying close to top $$ to the QB for a guys that's really not a top QB, but he's the best the team has had in awhile so they pay him.  Tannerhill in Miami, Carr, Flacco, etc.  Then not enough money left to put a great team around him and those guys need greatness to win.

 

Take a Brady, Rodgers, Manning, they can make middle of the road guys WR, TE, RB look great.  Often then their contract runs out, they want to be paid top $$, but the team realizes it's really Rodgers that made him great, so they decline he goes elsewhere and puts up middle of the pack numbers and everyone is shocked.

 

Allen appears to be good enough to make the middle guys look great.  I do think you want one top tier guy like Diggs, but was reading a post the other day how we should sign Adams or Godwin to make the offense unstoppable.  We don't need that, nor can afford that.  Allen can win with Diggs, Davis, a decent rookie maybe slot WR, Knox,  and one middle tier backup for injury like a McKenzie.