Diggs traded to Texans for picks

[One Buffalo]

3 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Good point? You'd have the player on the roster.

That's like saying you can save $300 you planned on spending on groceries by lighting $250 on fire and then just not eating. The math only works if you ignore what the values represent.

 

But maybe they recognized the rapidly diminished value on their hands?  Not saying it's a slam dunk by any means.  But from a future perspective this is a good move, especially if they knew it was over and would be off the team beyond this year anyway.  

[BullBuchanan]

2 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

And what if the $300 worth of groceries are already half rotten, and you probably won't even get $25 worth of food out of it? Then you saved $25. 

 

Except the Bills save 25 million next year they can spend else where. And the year after, and the year after.

That's not the way it works. You have to pay t either way. One way you get something for it, the other way you get nothing. People are acting like he's washed up like Von Miller when he posted top 7-13 stats in every receiving category last year. The non-logic people are using to justify this deal is hilarious.

[PBF81]

2 minutes ago, Avisan said:

 

Buddy, Mario Manningham and David Three both did basically nothing with their careers outside of improbable Superbowl catches for the Giants.  Diggs was a middling-to-poor postseason player for us that ALSO did not have any big step-up moments.  That is eminently replaceable in the postseason, and there is no reason why a different player would be any less likely to step up than he was.

 

LOL  Finding players to not step up isn't the question here.  

 

 

2 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Even the very best teams have a pretty poor probability of winning the playoffs in any given year.  Let's do a math exercise.

 

Feel free.  Not interested in a straw-man statistical exercise.  

 

Any teams that win the Super Bowl and even make the Super Bowl have players that step up come playoff time.  That's the only "mathematical exercise" here that matters.  It's not a difficult concept or anything that's difficult to validate.  Just go look at the stats from those games.  Look at the teams that win them, they all have players that consistently stepped up other than their QBs.  For KC the most notable have been Kelce.  

 

We can't simply waltz into the playoffs proclaiming we have Allen as if he's Superman, and go win a Super Bowl without any players otherwise stepping up.  That's what we're talking about here.  Not arbitrary probabilities ignoring the teams that have those players, while we do not.  

 

 

[BullBuchanan]

2 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Only if Diggs has more value here than not, which clearly Beane doesn’t necessarily agree with you on. 

Well, Beane's track record isn't so great, so not sure I put much faith in him.

[MasterStrategist]

3 minutes ago, BeastMaster said:

I like Legette. He reminds me of AJ Brown...just a physical guy that can run and catch. He's big and fast enough with the physicality to win contested catches.

 

I also like Coleman, although I'm not sure he's quite fast enough to be a number one.

 

My preference is to get two guys in the first two rounds. I would be fine standing pat and drafting someone at 28 with a trade back for Legette, or Coleman, or Mitchell, or Worthy. 

 

I am not opposed to drafting Thomas, but I'm not moving up for him, and I'm getting another guy that is more NFL ready so he isn't forced into trying to be the guy right away.

 

Agree.

 

My "dream draft" is we land a combination of: Mitchell/Legette/Worthy/Coleman

 

Mitchell, Legette, Worthy are all possible/likely to come off the board from 21-40 IMO.  I think Coleman gets into the 40s, possible 50s due to his forty time.  But Coleman crushed the other "splits"/gauntlet drill, and created separation while at MSU (his time at FSU, in a simplified offense, didn't benefit him).

 

Get me some speed, and add a physical freak in Coleman who I think could be a steal in Rd2 (likely requiring a trade up).

 

Tez Walker is my fallback plan at 60.

 

This is the year to double dip at WR early.  We NEED downfield threats, more than 1.  Kincaid/Samuel/Shakir are solid underneath and intermediate options (Knox/Cook short too).  Samuel I think gets moved around alot/Swiss army knife.  But downfield, we have nobody I'd count on right now. And that was clearly missing in our arsenal LY.

 

Go get a 1 yr DE rental after draft.  Use rest of this years draft on best available at DT (3 tech), S, CB, and OL.

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, Sweats said:

Sorry, i was para-phrasing.......i forget who said it, but it was along the lines of, " whether by design or character, Diggs performance trailed miserably last season, which as a WR1, you never want leave your QB in that position. If it was by design, then Brady is showing maturity and character by not allowing Diggs to dictate HIS offense and allowing JA to distribute the ball around the field as he sees fit. If Diggs decline was from his character, then it shows that he should no longer have a place on the team by tossing the boat anchor out and limiting the growth of the team around him".

 

You know, something along those lines.

 

Wow.

I think both are probably true to some extent - I don't know that Diggs decline was from his character, but it's a fact that in Denver loss, Diggs played 98% of the snaps and had 3 receptions on 5 targets...for 34 yds.   The Jets, 80% of the snaps and even worse, 4 receptions on 8 targets for 27 yds.   Philly loss, 6 of 11 for 74 yds, 92% of the snaps.  After that, his snap counts were cut back.  

 

At the time I thought, they were trying to nurse Diggs through an injury, and maybe they were, who knows?  But the bottom line is, other guys got more snaps (who that was, varied from game to game) and the Bills won, without so much contribution from Diggs (or Davis).

[PBF81]

6 minutes ago, nucci said:

I know what you're saying but it is that simple. Football is not a complicated game.  You run patterns and get open. We'll be fine

 

If it's that simple, why as a 2nd-rounder has Samuel not been able to exceed a career average of about 500 yards and 3 TDs/season?  

 

Don't say the QB, that's pretty abysmal for any 2nd-round WR regardless of the circumstances.  We had crap WRs do as much with the litany of QBs we've had during out drought era.  

 

You're right in the sense that it's simple, ... on paper.  In practice it may not be so simple.  We'll find out in five months.     

 

 

[turbo044]

2 minutes ago, MasterStrategist said:

Agree.

 

My "dream draft" is we land a combination of: Mitchell/Legette/Worthy/Coleman

 

Mitchell, Legette, Worthy are all possible/likely to come off the board from 21-40 IMO.  I think Coleman gets into the 40s, possible 50s due to his forty time.  But Coleman crushed the other "splits"/gauntlet drill, and created separation while at MSU (his time at FSU, in a simplified offense, didn't benefit him).

 

Get me some speed, and add a physical freak in Coleman who I think could be a steal in Rd2 (likely requiring a trade up).

 

Tez Walker is my fallback plan at 60.

 

This is the year to double dip at WR early.  We NEED downfield threats, more than 1.  Kincaid/Samuel/Shakir are solid underneath and intermediate options (Knox/Cook short too).  Samuel I think gets moved around alot/Swiss army knife.  But downfield, we have nobody I'd count on right now. And that was clearly missing in our arsenal LY.

 

Go get a 1 yr DE rental after draft.  Use rest of this years draft on best available at DT (3 tech), S, CB, and OL.

I agree with you but I add ladd to the list.  I think he may end up being the best of all of the above,

[boyst]

17 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

This past season, Diggs was NOT getting open against physical man coverage by top CBs like Sneed.  It was notable.  Give him Kader Kohou and he'd eat him for brunch, of course.

 

In previous seasons, IIRC I read that the Bills were one of the bottom teams for % man because they ate it alive.  They didn't even see that much man 2022 IIRC  - McKenzie could eat man.  I believe I saw this year the Bills faced one of the highest % man coverage. 

Why?  Because they couldn't exploit it.

 

 

McKenzie would have made a difference this year. His athleticism couldn't be matched man to man.

 

Diggs is a great athlete but he isn't the spring chicken that can move fluidly.

 

Beasley lost his step and we saw it but he was so smart and able to find the sweet spots. Diggs isn't that cerebral. 

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Well, Beane's track record isn't so great, so not sure I put much faith in him.

What players have we traded away that have become superstars?

 

Wyatt Teller? 

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, PBF81 said:

 

Thanks for a decent response!!  

 

It is a somewhat complex analysis to be sure, with a bunch of variables.  Here's the thing, that's not Allen's strong suit.  Wouldn't it seem logical to play to his strong suit in the interests of getting all that we can from him, instead of trying to turn him into a game-managing ball-control passer?  That seems patently illogical.  

 

Last season, 9 of Allen's TD passes were 20+ yards.  Without looking, and knowing stats from years of analyzing the NFL, I'd venture to say that easily that's more than any QB playing today and likely even way back.  15 of his 29 were 15 yards+.  19 were double-digit TDs.  

 

Let's contrast that with Mahomes, considered to be the best in the game today and since Brady.  Mahomes had 3 of 27 over 20 and 5 in double-digits.  

 

It doesn't add up.  Call it The Process or whatever, but things are not aligning with what they've said since they drafted Allen.  They drafted him for his athletic ability and ability to make every throw and for his strong arm, right.  But you're suggesting that they're now trying to turn him into something contrary to that.  

 

Call me crazy, but good coaches take their strength(s) and figure out how to shove them down the opponents' throats.  Belichick didn't try to put a cap on Brady, neither is Reid trying to put a cap on Mahomes.  But it seems that McD, via Brady now, is trying to do that with Allen.  

 

The types of receivers we have, whatever their design by McBeane, are what we have because that's how we've planned.  Just as they say your as good as your record says you are, so too, your roster is as good as you've made it.  

 

In desperately looking to find some sort of plan or methodology here, all that anyone can offer is to blindly trust The Process, but seemingly not realizing that this Process isn't even identifiable for the most part and has otherwise never been articulated as to what it is.  And now on the cusp of us going from one of the league's best passing teams to some version of the Ravens.  Allen's better than Jackson, but not if he's not going to be used to his strengths.  

 

We seem to be taking a square peg and trying to force it into a round hole.  

 

 

I look at the KC playoff game and keep thinking if we had one bigger receiver I’d take the layups all day long and let him beat on those corners and let the corners make the tackle.  Deep stuff comes form that - wear them down, get them creeping, and hit the shot (unless it’s to Diggs, who dropped the shot it took them the whole game to set up).  
 

But your points about having ann intermediate or deep game are valid.  We have probably the only quarterback in the league who can hit Diggs in Detroit on Thanksgiving.  And that Shakir route that missed against KC in the playoffs is a throw that most wouldn’t even attempt.  So there’s a logic in leaning into that too.  I just want to have the ability to play and punish through the short game if we’re going to see the steady diet of two high again next year. 

[Motorin']

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

That's not the way it works. You have to pay t either way. One way you get something for it, the other way you get nothing. People are acting like he's washed up like Von Miller when he posted top 7-13 stats in every receiving category last year. The non-logic people are using to justify this deal is hilarious.

 

They have to pay him the next four years? That's news to me! I thought the Bills were saving almost 90 million from 2025-2027. What a dumb move to pay all of that for a guy who is guaranteed to be a top 3 receiver next year!

 

But seriously, his play definitely dipped to subpar in the final 2/3rds of last year. 

 

They bite the bullet this year to get better for the future instead of hanging onto a guy who's play is diminishing and was obviously a cancer. 

 

It also gives the wr they draft first a chance to get in the field and develop sooner. And then next year they have Diggs money to make a splash and bring in someone who could be a difference maker. 

 

[Mat68]

If he isnt top 5 in the league, thats alot of money and head pain. 

[MAJBobby]

 

[dollars 2 donuts]

I wanted just once in Josh's career for him to have a 1(A) and a 1(B) and see what happens if even for a single year.

 

There is no indication we will  ever see that before he leaves his prime.

 

That is is likely my one and only issue with the trade.

 

Please save your charts and quotes and potential this and potential that.

 

I wrote what I wrote and you're not going to change my mind. 

 

I always remain positive with Beane, but I am always weary of the chance, as I have stated before, that we may "Hasek" Josh Allen's career.

 

I would draft at least 1 WR in the first 3 rounds every remaining year of Josh's tenure here.  The same way people used to perceive drafting QBs when you don't have one.

 

We have one of the best QBs in the league, which should always be followed by, "and you can never have enough good WRs."

 

Go Bills.

 

Edited April 4 by dollars 2 donuts

[GoBills808]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

Nick Wright has good takes for the most part, but when he gets really dumb is complaining media treatment of Patrick Mahomes and Josh. Very strawman BS type stuff.

 

FtF has quickly become my favorite sports show. It’s actually pretty funny at spots.

If he wasn't so sensitive about mahomes/Allen he'd be tolerable I agree

1 hour ago, jkeerie said:

Which is why many NFL executives are praising Beane for the move.   If we haven't won with these aging players, it's time to reset and move forward with different players.  

Yes I agree, this is a good move and should be treated as such imo

[Beck Water]

6 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

That's not the way it works. You have to pay t either way. One way you get something for it, the other way you get nothing. People are acting like he's washed up like Von Miller when he posted top 7-13 stats in every receiving category last year. The non-logic people are using to justify this deal is hilarious.

 

I agree, of course, that Von Miller is not a good comparison.

 

The only stats Diggs was top 7 in were targets and receptions.  Top 13?  Receptions/G 9th.  10th in 1D.  12th in TD.  13th in total yards.

 

But "Every receiving category"?  Bzzzt.  

Y/G? 17th.  

Y/R? 67th

Y/T?  69th

Catch %?  111th.

Success %?  48th.
YBC?  15th

YAC? 31st

Passer rating when targeted?  111th.

Of 29 receivers with >1000 yds, he was 23 in drop % and 25th in broken tackles.

 

I'm not trying to say Diggs was horrid, but he was getting paid like a top-5 WR, and his performance, viewed from that lens, wasn't good ROI.

 

On the other hand, for the Texans as maybe the 18th paid WR, he slots in as reasonable ROI if he has a similar season.

I think the best logic that's been used on this deal is the chap who pointed out what other, comparable age and performance WR received in trade - which was....wait for it...comparable.

[julian]

1 hour ago, PBF81 said:

 

Why would we not?  

 

LOL  

 

Oh, no reasons.  

 

And no, you don't need the best roster in the league to win the Super Bowl.  If by this, You just need to win 3-4 games in a row at the end of the season, you mean the postseason, yes, that's correct.  And that's all, huh.  LOL  But in 7 seasons with our current head coach, we've strung two wins B2B in the postseason only once, and the first of those games we nearly lost to a notably inferior team with inferior talent and Reich as the head coach.  After those two games our coach gave the game away.  

 

So yeah, that's all we need to do, but if it were that easy then we wouldn't be having this exchange.  Right.  

 

I'll put it another way, with one of the most prolific WRs in the game and top defenses, we've failed to do that.  Now with a new C/QB pairing, WRs absent a true #1 (pending the draft and then only a rookie) and possibly even a #2 given the takes on Davis, an all but completely new secondary, the expectations are similar?  

 

Well, OK.  We all have our opinions.  As I've expressed to another, I'm envious of people thinking like that.  None of the circles that I keep offline are nearly as optimistic. Hell, some think I'm overly optimistic.  LOL  

 

 

Birds of a feather…

[Beck Water]

13 minutes ago, Mat68 said:

If he isnt top 5 in the league, thats alot of money and head pain. 

 

There you have it.

[Nextmanup]

Is this Stefon's most memorable moment as a Bill?

 

It's the one I'll remember.