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

[Saxum]

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. 

 

Don't for get the cheating.  Every win should have an asterisk on it.

[JaCrispy]

No...

[hemma]

I’m all for overkill.

Superior play from our skill positions is what will keep Josh very effective ( and upright) for many years.

Get mediocre on him & he’ll be scanning for an open guy way too long, far too often. All that extra scan time will eventually get him hurt.

 

If that ever happens, we are just another football team.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

If only the Giants could afford such luxuries as a $6M slot receiver. 

 

Schoen and Daboll got their work cut out for them.

 

I'm sure they are shaking out the sofa cushions in Mara's office for spare change looking at the roster to see where cap can be freed up to bring in players they want

 

Though seriously, when I heard what Beane said in his presser, "I just may plan to trade him" was exactly how I interpreted it. 

At the time, Daboll wasn't hired by the Giants of course.

[Thurman#1]

5 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?

 

 

 

While I understand your analysis, I think it's not really correct on Brady. They did spend less resources on WR than most. Equally, they emphasized TE a great deal. Which was really smart since TEs were an awful lot cheaper than WRs back then. Still cheaper but not as much so. But Terry Glenn was a damn good receiver for the Pats. And NE strongly stressed slot WRs through the years as well - again cheaper - and had terrific ones in Welker and Edelman.

 

IMO your question is interesting but the answer is no. Brady was a different kind of QB. His game was accuracy and consistency. He could throw the long ball, but that wasn't really his game. 

 

Allen is a different kind of QB, though he's worked on consistency and accuracy and has become damn good at it. Brady's game in NE was mostly about sustaining drives, about scheme to get guys open, and about the short and mid-range game. Allen terrifies teams with the constant specter of the long ball. His game is about as devastating as Brady's even at his peak, but it's different, and has different needs.

 

Also, the Pats ran the ball a lot more than we appear to want to, stressing defenses with unpredictability.

 

 

[Thurman#1]

5 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

You're completely misreading the current NFL game. It isn't the nineties, the rules strongly favor offense, even the '85 Bears would have trouble dominating. When you have arguably the best qb in the game, you play to that strength and add playmakers to extend his career and increase his effectiveness. That doesn't mean you neglect defense, but the relative tilt needs to go opposite from your intuition.

 

 

No, he's not misreading anything.

 

Yes, the rules favor the offense. That's why scoring is up. But the game is still about getting the highest score and that's accomplished two ways, by scoring more and by making the other guy score less. 

 

Go through recent SB winners and you'll find a big majority of good defenses. Offenses too. What you tend to find is balance.

[billybrew1]

9 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?

 

I think the notion that New England didn't have have talent at WR is a fallacy. It's imperative, We've got to keep supplying JA with guys that won't let him down. I

[Big Turk]

Why would you want to make the offense less effective? Makes no sense.

[BullBuchanan]

10 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?

 

Diggs is as much of a top-end WR as we need and Davis fills in great as a #2 and deep threat. beyond that it's important to get a player with some shiftiness for the slot, but they don't need to carry the kind of cap that Cole does. McKenzie on a bridge deal would be fine, otherwise I'll look for someone in the later rounds to compete with stevenson, hodgins and some value free agents.

I think what would help us more than anything is a couple of really good pass catching and pass blocking RBs. They don't have to be top of the line, but NE has made hay with that committee based approach for years and I'd like to have someone like james white, kevin faulk, shane vareen, etc.

A second TE that's not useless would be nice too.

[Man with No Name]

you can probably afford to pay a couple receivers at a time, and then hope josh can get a couple other guys to play above their pay grade. this is what manning was able to do consistently. 

 

 

[Pbomb]

Yes if we want the offense to be worse and then to possibly discourage Allen down the road so he wants out of here 

Edited January 30, 2022 by Pbomb

[racketmaster]

I understand the point because Allen by himself can elevate just about any offense to be at least decent. But the way the NFL is set up, offenses are the priority and there are quite a few teams in the AFC that can score points in a hurry with 2 of them being in the Championship game today. We were supposedly the #1 defense in the league and we’re absolutely helpless in trying to slow down, let alone stop KC. So trying to build a all star defense at the expense of your offense does not seem to make sense. I’d prefer to strengthen the offense to make sure it remains at the top of the league and I would allocate defensive $ only towards playmakers. Guys that get sacks and get or create turnovers. This way u hope when I are in a shootout that u have enough playmakers on defense that they can get the occasional takeaway even if they are still getting scored on. As much as we spent on the d line we did not have that sack machine player upfront. And I’d definitely be against extending Edwards as he does not fit the playmaker category and would cost way too much $. We need better play up front and in the back end (cb) and just average lb play to go with Milano and the defense would be just fine. I also don’t want to focus so much on the defense that McDermott begins to “trust” it or rely on them too much with punting and such. 

[Giuseppe Tognarelli]

The two most important components of building a football team are the QB and offensive line. If they are both truly elite, the team will have a chance to blow any team out.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

14 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?

 

 

Does he need a #1 guy at all positions?

 

No.  

He can do it with solid reliable guys like Diggs, Knox, Davis and Beasley 

[Coach Tuesday]

13 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

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.

Its not really their approach though.  KC keeps going after more skill - they acquired Watkins, Gordon, and rumor has it they’re going to go hard after OBJ this offseason.  They traded a first for a LT, signed Bell, etc.  If Kamara became available they’d be the first team in line.  And they’ve done the same on defense in terms of targeting pass rushers, Honey Badger etc.  Not all of their moves have worked out but they keep trying.  I wish the Bills pursued skill as aggressively as KC does - the skill disparity was on full display last weekend.

Edited January 30, 2022 by Coach Tuesday

[Dr. Who]

8 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

No, he's not misreading anything.

 

Yes, the rules favor the offense. That's why scoring is up. But the game is still about getting the highest score and that's accomplished two ways, by scoring more and by making the other guy score less. 

 

Go through recent SB winners and you'll find a big majority of good defenses. Offenses too. What you tend to find is balance.

No one has said defense is unimportant. If you read through the thread, you'll see what is intended. We need to allocate more prime resources to offense. This regime has not shown itself averse to spending top picks on D. So far, it's got you a pretty good defense. If they want to kick that up a notch, they're going to have to get someone like Chandler Jones which another poster suggested. A speed cb2 would help. Folks can see what could improve that side of the ball and that's fine, but the idea that the offense is good enough and it's the D that needs attention is not correct imo.

[Charles Romes]

We’ve been getting killed because the other guys have a franchise QB AND two other-worldly pass catchers. 

[streetkings01]

15 hours ago, Niagara Dude said:

Allen still needs guys to create separation and Davis benefited because the Chiefs lost their best DB and Safety along with the fact they were not going to allow Diggs to beat them.

Davis has been beating guys 1on1 since his rookie year…..stop selling him short!

[Niagara Dude]

30 minutes ago, streetkings01 said:

Davis has been beating guys 1on1 since his rookie year…..stop selling him short!

Not selling him short, but it's a fact that because of Diggs he receives the one on one coverage which credit to him he dominated all night.  He needs to start next season as the clear #2 receiver on this team

Edited January 30, 2022 by Niagara Dude
spelling

[Jpsredemption]

I’d do the opposite and go offense heavy this off-season. Look at the last teams standing and some of the weapons they have.