Hopkins released by Arizona (7/16: signed by Titans)

[Beck Water]

6 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

You're operating as if there's no chance Davis can rebound after his first year as a starter dealing with injuries, Kincaid won't have a solid Rookie season, and Harty will underperform/won't stay healthy.

 

Maybe 1 or 2 of those things will happen. But all of them? I wouldn't bet on it. And that's not taking into account already having Diggs and Knox, solid pass catching RB's in Cook and Hines, as well as Wild Cards like Justin Shorter and Trent Sherfield.

 

This team has weapons.

 

Don't sleep on Sherfield and Khalil Shakir.

[HappyDays]

2 hours ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

But our biggest issue was a guy that averaged over 17 yards a catch had the #2 target share? 

 

Yeah, the biggest issue by far was that our #2 target had a 51.6% catch rate. That's abysmal. It's basically half his targets that fell incomplete.

 

6 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

You're operating as if there's no chance Davis can rebound after his first year as a starter dealing with injuries, Kincaid won't have a solid Rookie season, and Harty will underperform/won't stay healthy.

 

Maybe 1 or 2 of those things will happen. But all of them? I wouldn't bet on it. And that's not taking into account already having Diggs and Knox, solid pass catching RB's in Cook and Hines, as well as Wild Cards like Justin Shorter and Trent Sherfield.

 

This team has weapons.

 

I mean you're literally just naming players on the roster and that's your whole argument that the team has weapons.

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by HappyDays

[MasterStrategist]

16 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Yeah, the biggest issue by far was that our #2 target had a 51.6% catch rate. That's abysmal. It's basically half his targets that fell incomplete.

 

 

I mean you're literally just naming players on the roster and that's your whole argument that the team has weapons.

 

The 51.6% catch rate is an overblown stat.  Better to look at catchable passes.  And yes Gabe had drops, that he should have made...but please keep hanging their hat on the 50% stat and it's just misinforming.

 

Davante Adams was also in the 50%s in 2022 as well.  See its easy to drop a stat and make a story around it...guess Adams is no good either.

 

Josh could be better with ball placement too on his throws, and a certain amount of Gabes targets are "throw aways" by Josh (tends to be a higher % of passes, given the routes Gabe is asked to run).  

 

No excuses, Gabe needs to improve but I prefer looking at the whole picture, than cherry picking stats that are misleading.  Perhaps Dorsey should be improving/adapting too, on a more efficient passing game that isn't so deep ball dependent.

 

https://www.billsfans.com/forums/topic/2689-gabe-davis-caught-an-abysmal-516-of-his-93-targets-update-high-not-catchable/page/2/

 

 

 

[JaCrispy]

29 minutes ago, MasterStrategist said:

The 51.6% catch rate is an overblown stat.  Better to look at catchable passes.  And yes Gabe had drops, that he should have made...but please keep hanging their hat on the 50% stat and it's just misinforming.

 

Davante Adams was also in the 50%s in 2022 as well.  See its easy to drop a stat and make a story around it...guess Adams is no good either.

 

Josh could be better with ball placement too on his throws, and a certain amount of Gabes targets are "throw aways" by Josh (tends to be a higher % of passes, given the routes Gabe is asked to run).  

 

No excuses, Gabe needs to improve but I prefer looking at the whole picture, than cherry picking stats that are misleading.  Perhaps Dorsey should be improving/adapting too, on a more efficient passing game that isn't so deep ball dependent.

 

https://www.billsfans.com/forums/topic/2689-gabe-davis-caught-an-abysmal-516-of-his-93-targets-update-high-not-catchable/page/2/

 

 

 

If you’re gonna go this route, then you’re essentially saying that Allen was the least accurate QB last year…

 

If you’re not blaming Gabe for having the lowest catch rate in the league (either due to hands or lack of athleticism), then you HAVE to blame Josh- and I’m not willing to believe that in this case…

 

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by JaCrispy

[uticaclub]

2 hours ago, Dopey said:

Some of you are really reaching for problems to B word about. Page 127 of a Hopkins thread delves into how bad our offense was/is. An offense that was 2nd in points per game. Not in the  AFCE , in the entire league. What a miserable place this can be. Perfection can be a goal, but it’s unattainable guys. Stop it. 
Second in points per game. In the entire league. 

How many points did we score against the Bengals in the playoffs?

[BuffaloBillyG]

1 hour ago, Solomon Grundy said:

Not if you couldn't afford it. I'd like to upgrade my Ford for a Maybach... 

They can afford it. That's the thing most people aren't comprehending at all. Between restructures they could still make combined with an extension or two that would make sense as well as money they have spent since then and a couple of cuts that may happen anyway it's well attainable.

 

The issue is they haven't (at least to this point) deemed that the need outweighs the cost.

[BuffaloBillyG]

49 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Yeah, the biggest issue by far was that our #2 target had a 51.6% catch rate. That's abysmal. It's basically half his targets that fell incomplete.

 

 

I mean you're literally just naming players on the roster and that's your whole argument that the team has weapons.

 

Yeah, agree that is an issue and it was something the hurt. But IMO any of those other reasons I listed were just as big an issue if not bigger. 

[HappyDays]

32 minutes ago, MasterStrategist said:

Davante Adams was also in the 50%s in 2022 as well.  See its easy to drop a stat and make a story around it...guess Adams is no good either.

 

Come on. There are too many knowledgeable fans on here for you to throw out this argument and expect it to land. Adams from his 3rd year on ranged from 62% to 77% catch percentage. Last year he played in a terrible offense led by Derek Carr's career worst performance and he in turn had the worst catch percentage of his career. You're reducing a career's worth of production to a single year... that isn't going to fly.

 

Davis on the other hand has seen his catch percentage drop from 56.5% to 55.6% to 51.6% in each year of his young career. His 4% drop last year was entirely predictable - going from facing #3 and worse DBs to consistently facing #1 and #2 DBs of course brought down his efficiency.

 

A 50ish percent catch guy is what Davis has always been. And he doesn't have a skill set conducive to suddenly jumping into the 60s like any worthy #2 target.

[Thurman#1]

14 minutes ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

They can afford it. That's the thing most people aren't comprehending at all. Between restructures they could still make combined with an extension or two that would make sense as well as money they have spent since then and a couple of cuts that may happen anyway it's well attainable.

 

The issue is they haven't (at least to this point) deemed that the need outweighs the cost.

 

 

For the millionth time, yeah, they can afford it. And if I maxed out the credit cards, I can afford a De Tomaso P72. All I have to do i go to 100 banks or so and get a credit card in each and max 'em all out.

 

Again, whether you can afford it is NOT the question. The question is whether it's a good idea to afford it. And it would not be a good idea for me to afford that De Tomaso.

 

Nor would it be a good idea for the Bills to spend the king's ransom Hopkins is almost certainly demanding. 

 

People completely and fully underestand that the Bills can afford it. And that affording it doesn't mean it won't cause financial havoc to do it.

[BuffaloBillyG]

5 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

For the millionth time, yeah, they can afford it. And if I maxed out the credit cards, I can afford a De Tomaso P72. All I have to do i go to 100 banks or so and get a credit card in each and max 'em all out.

 

Again, whether you can afford it is NOT the question. The question is whether it's a good idea to afford it. And it would not be a good idea for me to afford that De Tomaso.

 

Nor would it be a good idea for the Bills to spend the king's ransom Hopkins is almost certainly demanding. 

 

People completely and fully underestand that the Bills can afford it. And that affording it doesn't mean it won't cause financial havoc to do it.

Yes, that is my point. I'm saying they can afford it and if the need met the price they would pull the trigger. "The price" isn't just dollars today it's what it does to the financial ledger down the road as well. We are agreed there.

 

And no, not everyone understands that they can afford the move financially. Which is why we have so many in this very thread saying "we can't afford it"...which is what I was replying to. 

[Thurman#1]

4 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Come on. There are too many knowledgeable fans on here for you to throw out this argument and expect it to land. Adams from his 3rd year on ranged from 62% to 77% catch percentage. Last year he played in a terrible offense led by Derek Carr's career worst performance and he in turn had the worst catch percentage of his career. You're reducing a career's worth of production to a single year... that isn't going to fly.

 

Davis on the other hand has seen his catch percentage drop from 56.5% to 55.6% to 51.6% in each year of his young career. His 4% drop last year was entirely predictable - going from facing #3 and worse DBs to consistently facing #1 and #2 DBs of course brought down his efficiency.

 

A 50ish percent catch guy is what Davis has always been. And he doesn't have a skill set conducive to suddenly jumping into the 60s like any worthy #2 target.

 

 

Come on, no way you can be so confident about what's causing a very small difference in a stat like completion percentage.

 

Guys who are consistently getting such deep targets consistently don't have completion percentages as high. 

 

That's not the complete story of course, but it's a major reason why the completion percentage is what it is. You can't pretend there aren't a million things impacting completion percentages, including how well the QB is throwing and whether he has a problem with his throwing arm, for instance. Or that his Y/R was his highest ever.

 

And because a guy doesn't have something in his skill set now doesn't mean he can't change and develop that skill set. It isn't necessarily possible, and certainly not in every case. But it happens.

[Bobby Hooks]

17 minutes ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

Yes, that is my point. I'm saying they can afford it and if the need met the price they would pull the trigger. "The price" isn't just dollars today it's what it does to the financial ledger down the road as well. We are agreed there.

 

And no, not everyone understands that they can afford the move financially. Which is why we have so many in this very thread saying "we can't afford it"...which is what I was replying to. 

But on that same token what if those posters are just saying we can’t afford it, meaning it’ll cause financial havoc down the road? 
 

Just as your post was misunderstood, couldn’t theirs also be? 
 

At this point, I’d say everyone understands the ramifications. It’s whether or not you believe this is THEE year you have to push your chips and go all in. 
 

I personally am on the side of let’s forget about Hopkins. We have a #1 receiver that is complaining about targets as it is, even though he’s what, the second most targeted receiver in a three year span? Adding Hopkins to that equation just sounds like a headache no one needs this season. 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Bobby Hooks

[Thurman#1]

7 minutes ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

Yes, that is my point. I'm saying they can afford it and if the need met the price they would pull the trigger. "The price" isn't just dollars today it's what it does to the financial ledger down the road as well. We are agreed there.

 

And no, not everyone understands that they can afford the move financially. Which is why we have so many in this very thread saying "we can't afford it"...which is what I was replying to. 

 

 

Clearly we're agreed that the financial future impact should be a part of this decision. We agree on that much at least.

 

But, no, that's not what I'm saying. Your point addresses need, or at least that's what you said in your first sentence here. Mine does not.

 

I'm saying that regardless of need, or value for that matter, the fact that you can afford something IN NO WAY necessarily means it's a good idea to buy it. 

 

And yes, people do understand that the Bills are capable of affording the decision. It is exactly the fact that so many think that whether we can afford it is the right question that has created all of those posts. Again, whether we can afford it is NOT the right question.

 

Again, I can afford that $1.3M De Tomaso. But it would be a spectacularly stupid financial decision for me to do so regardless of the fact that the De Tomaso is absolutely worth every penny. Eventually I'd be the owner of a De Tomaso living under a bridge. Because you can find the money does NOT mean it's a good financial decision to do so. 

 

I'm concerned we're talking past each other, at least a bit, so I'm going to disengage here. See you around the boards. Good luck.

 

 

 

 

[Warriorspikes51]

14 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Clearly we're agreed that the financial future impact should be a part of this decision. We agree on that much at least.

 

But, no, that's not what I'm saying. Your point addresses need, or at least that's what you said in your first sentence here. Mine does not.

 

I'm saying that regardless of need, or value for that matter, the fact that you can afford something IN NO WAY necessarily means it's a good idea to buy it. 

 

And yes, people do understand that the Bills are capable of affording the decision. It is exactly the fact that so many think that whether we can afford it is the right question that has created all of those posts. Again, whether we can afford it is NOT the right question.

 

Again, I can afford that $1.3M De Tomaso. But it would be a spectacularly stupid financial decision for me to do so regardless of the fact that the De Tomaso is absolutely worth every penny. Eventually I'd be the owner of a De Tomaso living under a bridge. Because you can find the money does NOT mean it's a good financial decision to do so. 

 

I'm concerned we're talking past each other, at least a bit, so I'm going to disengage here. See you around the boards. Good luck.

 

 

 

 

Pantera is one of the coolest cars ever made!  I'd put that on my top 10 list 

[Jerry Jabber]

 

[Chicken Boo]

54 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:

Pantera is one of the coolest cars ever made!  I'd put that on my top 10 list 

 

Mangusta > Pantera, but yes.  Both are primo 

[Alphadawg7]

14 minutes ago, Jerry Jabber said:

 

 

Wow, what show is this?  This is literally some of the worst journalism I have ever seen.  

[Andrew Son]

Diggs was very frustrated at getting all that money up front!

[julian]

3 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Wow, what show is this?  This is literally some of the worst journalism I have ever seen.  

Not saying it’s true, but why is it bad journalism? Just speculation like every other outlet, this is just a different angle and to be fair it seems much more logical than Diggs wants the ball more.

 

 It definitely could be that along with his frustration of constantly being doubled and bracketed that he’s been expecting an upgrade opposite him to loosen coverage.

 

 I hope this guess at the issue has some merit.

[Warriorspikes51]

If he doesn't sign with the Pats in the very near future, maybe we still have a legit shot?   

Beane could circle back with a higher offer in July after a restructure