How should we address WR?

[Dr. Who]

17 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I guess that we just have a different idea of how often they will throw. I have them at 36 pass attempts a game. Without big play availability that feels about right. They averaged 33 pass attempts a game with Brady. That’s a little bit misleading though because they only threw the ball 15 times vs. Dallas. We disagree at how often the Bills will throw.

 

We also disagree that the rest of those guys are capable of taking that kind of target share. Some of these guys were productive with low target share and low attention from the defense. The Bills don’t have anyone that scares teams in the passing game with the exception of maybe Kincaid (if he keeps developing). The rest of those guys are role players and without an alpha in the room they are going to be defended like top players. That’s not ideal. The Bills NEED an alpha. All of those guys need that guy to take attention.
 

If the Bills top receivers are on the roster now, they won’t go to the playoffs. they have to get 1 of the top 3 or 2 of the top 12. They can’t bank on “hoping” to be right in the 4th or 5th. That’s not an option any longer. It was a bad idea when Diggs was here. Now, it isn’t a thought. 

I don't think a lot folks are buying the need for an alpha. Many seem to think the idea of WR1 is obsolete. They believe all you have to do is spread the ball around to capable receivers. There's no sense that the stress imposed by a dominant WR opens up space for the role players, and that without that fella, the space goes away and with it, much of the productivity of the role players.

 

Indeed, there are those who argue that we found Davis and Shakir in the mid-rounds, and presuming they were/are "good enough," there's no urgency, or they point to a deep draft at the position and think one can safely let the draft come to you. This relative complacency perpetuates the same m.o. of asking Josh Allen to elevate mid-level talent, rather than providing him with some elite talent to work with. It's disheartening to me to see that mindset, and I don't understand how it is compelling to many, but apparently it is.

Edited April 10 by Dr. Who

[Beck Water]

4 hours ago, njbuff said:

Trading down is a good option if all the coveted WR's are all taken by 28 and the cost of moving up is too much. 

 

It wouldn't be a bad thing and the Bills still have a roster to fill out. So, trading back isn't a bad option at all.

 

Allen doesn't need an elite receiver. He needs someone who will HOLD ON TO THE DAMN BALL. 

 

He needs both - a WR who is elite at faking out defenders and getting open, AND who will hang on to the damned ball.

But, as I hope is obvious from a post I did in another thread, that doesn't translate to "move up in the draft at all costs" or even "draft WR in the 1st".

 

The trick is always to figure out which of the prospects is actually gold.

Edited April 10 by Beck Water

[billsfan89]

6 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I guess that we just have a different idea of how often they will throw. I have them at 36 pass attempts a game. Without big play availability that feels about right. They averaged 33 pass attempts a game with Brady. That’s a little bit misleading though because they only threw the ball 15 times vs. Dallas. We disagree at how often the Bills will throw.

 

We also disagree that the rest of those guys are capable of taking that kind of target share. Some of these guys were productive with low target share and low attention from the defense. The Bills don’t have anyone that scares teams in the passing game with the exception of maybe Kincaid (if he keeps developing). The rest of those guys are role players and without an alpha in the room they are going to be defended like top players. That’s not ideal. The Bills NEED an alpha. All of those guys need that guy to take attention.
 

If the Bills top receivers are on the roster now, they won’t go to the playoffs. they have to get 1 of the top 3 or 2 of the top 12. They can’t bank on “hoping” to be right in the 4th or 5th. That’s not an option any longer. It was a bad idea when Diggs was here. Now, it isn’t a thought. 

We can quibble about the targets but the targets available aren’t going to be more than a 5% increase and I think a lot of the Diggs 160 target volume is not going to be absorbed just by two rookies. Shakir is going to likely have 45 more targets and Kincaid 20 more targets. That’s already chipping away 65 targets from Diggs. 

 

I think the Bills will need impact from a rookie and that’s why it is imperative they draft one with their first pick. But I do doubt that the Bills fortunes are resting on a depth WR who’s at best only going to be a WR4 and get 40-50 targets if there are no major injuries and it’s probably closer to 30 targets more likely if health is not a factor.

 

If the Bills can find a rookie to who can have a good impact and absorb 70-80 targets efficiently then I think the Bills will be in a good spot. I think they don’t have to draft a WR at pick 60 if there isn’t a good one there or the value is much greater at another position of need.

 

They can find a WR at pick 128 or 133 to add depth and take on 30-40 targets.

[ghostwriter]

9 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

We can quibble about the targets but the targets available aren’t going to be more than a 5% increase and I think a lot of the Diggs 160 target volume is not going to be absorbed just by two rookies. Shakir is going to likely have 45 more targets and Kincaid 20 more targets. That’s already chipping away 65 targets from Diggs. 

 

I think the Bills will need impact from a rookie and that’s why it is imperative they draft one with their first pick. But I do doubt that the Bills fortunes are resting on a depth WR who’s at best only going to be a WR4 and get 40-50 targets if there are no major injuries and it’s probably closer to 30 targets more likely if health is not a factor.

 

If the Bills can find a rookie to who can have a good impact and absorb 70-80 targets efficiently then I think the Bills will be in a good spot. I think they don’t have to draft a WR at pick 60 if there isn’t a good one there or the value is much greater at another position of need.

 

They can find a WR at pick 128 or 133 to add depth and take on 30-40 targets.

Don’t mind me, I’m just a “bro scout” at best but wouldn’t it make sense to double down on WR at 28 and 60? This is a very nice class. What other holes do we have?

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

We can quibble about the targets but the targets available aren’t going to be more than a 5% increase and I think a lot of the Diggs 160 target volume is not going to be absorbed just by two rookies. Shakir is going to likely have 45 more targets and Kincaid 20 more targets. That’s already chipping away 65 targets from Diggs. 

 

I think the Bills will need impact from a rookie and that’s why it is imperative they draft one with their first pick. But I do doubt that the Bills fortunes are resting on a depth WR who’s at best only going to be a WR4 and get 40-50 targets if there are no major injuries and it’s probably closer to 30 targets more likely if health is not a factor.

 

If the Bills can find a rookie to who can have a good impact and absorb 70-80 targets efficiently then I think the Bills will be in a good spot. I think they don’t have to draft a WR at pick 60 if there isn’t a good one there or the value is much greater at another position of need.

 

They can find a WR at pick 128 or 133 to add depth and take on 30-40 targets.

My numbers had already account for Diggs’ targets to drop by like 35. 
 

I’m sorry. I misunderstood. I haven’t read the whole thread. I thought that you were advocating waiting until the 4th to add their 1st WR. I think that it’s reasonable to wait until the 4th to try to add the 2nd guy. I wouldn’t but that’s not insane. That holds especially true if they go up for one of the big 3. I don’t think Javon Baker makes it to the 4th but he would be amazing. There are guys in that range that have different skill sets. The Bills picked the right draft to be desperate for WR help. This draft is LOADED at the position. 

[billsfan89]

11 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

My numbers had already account for Diggs’ targets to drop by like 35. 
 

I’m sorry. I misunderstood. I haven’t read the whole thread. I thought that you were advocating waiting until the 4th to add their 1st WR. I think that it’s reasonable to wait until the 4th to try to add the 2nd guy. I wouldn’t but that’s not insane. That holds especially true if they go up for one of the big 3. I don’t think Javon Baker makes it to the 4th but he would be amazing. There are guys in that range that have different skill sets. The Bills picked the right draft to be desperate for WR help. This draft is LOADED at the position. 

No problem I get caught up in threads haha. I think the Bills won’t be in a position to trade up for a top 3 WR without having to give up a lot to the point where I don’t think it would be worth it. I think there also little chance Brian Thomas lasts past the 20-22 range either. 
 

So I think the Bills at pick 28 are going to have to “let the draft come to them” so to speak and just see whose there at pick 28 and either trade down a bit if that’s available or take the 5th WR on the board (likely Franklin, McConkey or Legette). 
 

I think at pick 60 if a really good WR is there no issue taking them but if a top Guard/DT/DE is there those needs shouldn’t be ignored to double up at WR if the value is lackluster. 
 

I think if you take a WR in the 26-35 range I think you can wait to pick 128 to add some depth.

Edited April 10 by billsfan89

[Beck Water]

41 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

I don't think a lot folks are buying the need for an alpha. Many seem to think the idea of WR1 is obsolete. They believe all you have to do is spread the ball around to capable receivers. There's no sense that the stress imposed by a dominant WR opens up space for the role players, and that without that fella, the space goes away and with it, much of the productivity of the role players.

 

Indeed, there are those who argue that we found Davis and Shakir in the mid-rounds, and presuming they were/are "good enough," there's no urgency, or they point to a deep draft at the position and think one can safely let the draft come to you. This relative complacency perpetuates the same m.o. of asking Josh Allen to elevate mid-level talent, rather than providing him with some elite talent to work with. It's disheartening to me to see that mindset, and I don't understand how it is compelling to many, but apparently it is.

 

So I think there are a couple of layers to this.

 

The first is the layer I already covered elsewhere - drafting a player high in the 1st, or even in the 1st at all, does not guarantee an elite talent.  It gives teams the highest probability, but it's far from a certainty.    Nor does drafting later exclude an elite talent.  So to a certain extent, those who feel we can "let the draft come to us", point to the intrinsic uncertainty of player evaluations, and the fact that draft picks are an alignment between the team's internal talent evaluation and their sense of "how the frog will jump" for the other 31 teams.

 

The second layer is that there's a difference between what's needed to win in the regular season, vs what's needed to win in the playoffs.  The Bills managed 10 wins and a trip to the playoffs with no #1 WR, sort of "#1 by committee" between John Brown, Cole Beasley, creative play design, and a handful of "guys".  But they couldn't close the deal.

 

Next year we went to the AFCCG with the addition of Diggs as a true #1 (by the way, I hate that term "alpha".  It gets used all the time by a bunch of chest-thumpers who feel the need to tell the world they're the top wolf in a theory of pack hierarchy that's been debunked for several decades - in fact, the same scientist who developed it, later debunked it.  But I digress).  It wasn't quite good enough to get us into the Superbowl, but arguably we were close on offense.   

 

But then we saw Brown decline, and obviously not quite enough done to replace them with Davis 2nd year, and 34 year old Sanders/32 year old Beasley.  We were still good to stack W in the regular season, but just having a #1 in Diggs wasn't enough in the playoffs.

 

So the third layer is, if asked whether it's more important to have a #1 WR or to have a number of capable receivers to spread the ball around, my vote is "Both are needed".  In the playoffs, with the best defenses, if you don't have a #1, they'll stifle all your receivers. If you do have a #1 but not enough depth, they'll stifle your #1 and the rest of the guys won't be able to do enough.

Anyway TL;DR I'm not sure the mindset you think you're seeing, is exactly the mindset people have.  But maybe I'm wrong.  

[HappyDays]

2 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

Shakir 100

 

More than doubling Shakir's targets from last year is not a solution. I can't even imagine a scenario where this would be true. Even if you just look at the last 11 games of the season (when he was the leading receiver on the team) he paced for 62 targets over a 17 season.

 

You're actually making the pro-"draft two WRs high" argument here. You've proven that a world where the Bills don't draft two WRs high is a world where Shakir has to get a ridiculously high number of targets just to even have a functional passing offense. That world can't exist.

 

Edited April 10 by HappyDays

[In Summary]

The double dip is most likely round 1/2 and round 4/5.

[Dr. Who]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

So I think there are a couple of layers to this.

 

The first is the layer I already covered elsewhere - drafting a player high in the 1st, or even in the 1st at all, does not guarantee an elite talent.  It gives teams the highest probability, but it's far from a certainty.    Nor does drafting later exclude an elite talent.  So to a certain extent, those who feel we can "let the draft come to us", point to the intrinsic uncertainty of player evaluations, and the fact that draft picks are an alignment between the team's internal talent evaluation and their sense of "how the frog will jump" for the other 31 teams.

 

The second layer is that there's a difference between what's needed to win in the regular season, vs what's needed to win in the playoffs.  The Bills managed 10 wins and a trip to the playoffs with no #1 WR, sort of "#1 by committee" between John Brown, Cole Beasley, creative play design, and a handful of "guys".  But they couldn't close the deal.

 

Next year we went to the AFCCG with the addition of Diggs as a true #1 (by the way, I hate that term "alpha".  It gets used all the time by a bunch of chest-thumpers who feel the need to tell the world they're the top wolf in a theory of pack hierarchy that's been debunked for several decades - in fact, the same scientist who developed it, later debunked it.  But I digress).  It wasn't quite good enough to get us into the Superbowl, but arguably we were close on offense.   

 

But then we saw Brown decline, and obviously not quite enough done to replace them with Davis 2nd year, and 34 year old Sanders/32 year old Beasley.  We were still good to stack W in the regular season, but just having a #1 in Diggs wasn't enough in the playoffs.

 

So the third layer is, if asked whether it's more important to have a #1 WR or to have a number of capable receivers to spread the ball around, my vote is "Both are needed".  In the playoffs, with the best defenses, if you don't have a #1, they'll stifle all your receivers. If you do have a #1 but not enough depth, they'll stifle your #1 and the rest of the guys won't be able to do enough.

Anyway TL;DR I'm not sure the mindset you think you're seeing, is exactly the mindset people have.  But maybe I'm wrong.  

Yes, you are certainly wrong. Or perhaps not, but I like to start with a strong statement that affirms all my prejudices.

 

It seems to me your argument, if I follow you well, is rather reminiscent of a similar argument with regard to the defense. It performs admirably in the regular season, then fades into disappointment once the zebras tend to allow more holding, and one is confronted with the better qbs, etc. Folks say we lack playmakers, and that hits both sides of the ball. We have depth, and we have good players, but few elite talents that can rise to the challenge of the moment once the post-season comes. 

 

I do think we currently lack the minimum threshold for that quality of playmaker, though we have some young guys who might ascend to that level. Josh is the only one I comfortably count as one. This doesn't mean he has not had failures, but our franchise qb is certainly someone who can be that player. (I am not using alpha as a technical scientific term, debunked or otherwise. I just grabbed it as part of a conversation, but if it offends you or bothers you because it is populist nonsense, I have no attachment to it whatsoever.) However we get them, first round, fifth round, free agent, trade, I think we need to elevate the talent level of the WR room beyond capable players.

 

I'm not sure we can pay the price for a top 3 WR, and of course, even the so-called safest pick has some element of risk. So many factors play into life, and it is true in sports as elsewhere. It's not a science, but an art, and the best scientists also have an aesthetic sense. Mathematicians and physicists often intuit the answer before they find the "proof" for it. I'm pretty sure you know all this. So, I would be excited to get one of those top 3 WRs, but probably be rather appalled at the price tag. My own sense of balancing prudence and risk is to opt for a double dip early at the position. I still think the odds of finding a playmaker talent at WR favor getting them early, so I'd prefer two lottery tickets. And I think you could get geometric payoffs, where the combination exceeds the value of each alone.

 

Personally, I love McConkey, and as a few others have surmised, I think he could fill the Diggs' role. He's not just a slot, and he's simply a smooth, beautiful route runner with more speed than some credit. Then I'd like to add a big-bodied X: Thomas, Mitchell, Legette are my preferences. This is not selling off next year's first, but it would cost something to come away with two of those. 

Edited April 10 by Dr. Who

[billsfan89]

23 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

More than doubling Shakir's targets from last year is not a solution. I can't even imagine a scenario where this would be true. Even if you just look at the last 11 games of the season (when he was the leading receiver on the team) he paced for 62 targets over a 17 season.

 

You're actually making the pro-"draft two WRs high" argument here. You've proven that a world where the Bills don't draft two WRs high is a world where Shakir has to get a ridiculously high number of targets just to even have a functional passing offense. That world can't exist.

 

 

90 targets is not that unrealistic for Shakir in my opinion. Shakir last season went into the season buried in the depth chart and not practicing with Josh and the starters as much. He was also just in his second year and didn't play much his rookie year. Add another full season of experience and an off-season/training camp of working as a starter with Josh and I think he is in a position where he can up his targets to 90. 

 

I also think it is not necessarily accurate to compare his last 11 games and extrapolate that to this upcoming season. First off Shakir was not the leading receiver on the team in that time period he was just the most efficient. Shakir only had 27 targets in the last 11 games. That was 4th most on the team in that time period. Diggs had 94 targets, Kincaid 72 and even Gabe Davis had 51 in that same game span compared to Shakir's 27. 

 

The Bills no longer have to force the ball into Diggs who despite 94 targets only caught those 94 targets at a poor 61.7% rate. The Bills can get Shakir and Kincaid the ball more and still have an efficient offense and enough depth of weapons if they can get a WR at pick 28 to contribute around 70-80 targets. 

 

If you draft a WR at pick 28 and at pick 60 how many targets are each of those players getting? Let's say you draft a WR at pick 28 then the WR depth chart puts that second rookie you drafted 60th overall as a WR4 at best, how many targets is a WR4 on an offense that is going to use 2 TE sets frequently and throw to their running backs a lot going to have for the 4th WR on the depth chart? And that's assuming a player like Shorter or Hollins doesn't soak in targets at a good clip. 

[BuffaloRebound]

3 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

They need them as much to be a “threat” to open up those guys. The Bills have a bottom 3 WR room in the league right now (with the Giants and Chargers). I’d have the Bills at 31. That’s awful. That holds especially true when your best player is your QB. Help him.

 

In terms of targets, I think that there are 200(ish) targets currently available. These 2 guys (one could come in FA or trade) but the Bills will be adding 2 guys that will receive 80+ targets.

Here is what I had for targets prior to the Diggs trade:

 

To recap (620 targets):

diggs - 130

wr2 (1st or 2nd round) - 110

kincaid - 110

Shakir - 80

Samuel - 55 (another 55 carries)

Cook - 50

Knox - 40

Hollins - 30

everyone else - 15

 

Let’s say that Knox picks up 20 and the rest of the group picks up an additional 50. That is really aggressive. That still leaves 170 targets needed out of this class (and FA). They are in a bad spot. They need 2 that can play tomorrow.

When it’s put into numbers like that, makes me think we sign a vet like Tyler Boyd.  Can’t count on 2 rookie WR’s getting that many targets.  

[HappyDays]

18 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

I also think it is not necessarily accurate to compare his last 11 games and extrapolate that to this upcoming season. First off Shakir was not the leading receiver on the team in that time period he was just the most efficient. Shakir only had 27 targets in the last 11 games. That was 4th most on the team in that time period. Diggs had 94 targets, Kincaid 72 and even Gabe Davis had 51 in that same game span compared to Shakir's 27. 

 

WRs are ranked by yards, not by targets. Shakir WAS the #1 pass catcher on the team by that metric over the last 11 games. He bested #2 and #3 by over 300 yards each. And don't make the mistake of assuming his yards per target will stay the same as his total targets go up. His skill set lends itself to low volume high efficiency usage. Don't mess with a good thing like we did with Gabe Davis after he excelled as the WR4 in 2020.

 

18 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

If you draft a WR at pick 28 and at pick 60 how many targets are each of those players getting?

 

A lot! Do you realize we currently have zero starting caliber WRs on the roster that can play outside full time? Shakir should be in the slot 75% of the time, Samuel should be at best a 50/50 split, and the other WRs on the roster aren't even worth mentioning. We have a QB who excels at throwing outside the numbers to the intermediate area of the field better than any other QB in the league, and I repeat we have zero true outside WRs on the roster.

 

We can't afford to screw this up. Diggs and Davis both could be planted outside. We no longer have either on the roster. So we need TWO replacements, not one. And both replacements have to be good enough to start. If we wait until the end of the 4th to find the second guy, I guess we'll have to sign OBJ or something like that just to have a functional outside passing offense. But I would rather just invest high in young players and start making up the massive under-investment we've made at that position since 2020.

 

Edited April 10 by HappyDays

[Beck Water]

54 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Yes, you are certainly wrong. Or perhaps not, but I like to start with a strong statement that affirms all my prejudices.

 

LOL

 

54 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

It seems to me your argument, if I follow you well, is rather reminiscent of a similar argument with regard to the defense. It performs admirably in the regular season, then fades into disappointment once the zebras tend to allow more holding, and one is confronted with the better qbs, etc. Folks say we lack playmakers, and that hits both sides of the ball. We have depth, and we have good players, but few elite talents that can rise to the challenge of the moment once the post-season comes. 

 

I do think we currently lack the minimum threshold for that quality of playmaker, though we have some young guys who might ascend to that level. Josh is the only one I comfortably count as one. This doesn't mean he has not had failures, but our franchise qb is certainly someone who can be that player.

 

On "Speak", one of the hosts - Emmanuel Acho maybe?  - was talking about what he called "freakazoids".  He said almost every team in the league has about 3 "freakazoids", players who have an uncanny amount of physical talent.  And that without enough "freakazoids", doesn't matter how well coached the team is, doesn't matter how hard you practice or how hard you play, going to lose because you don't have enough talent.

 

So yeah, I tend to agree with you.  On offense right now, we have Josh.  Maybe Cook might become a "freakazoid", he shows freakazoid flashes, but only flashes and then some significant lapses (the drops!).  Maybe Dalton Kincaid might become a "freakazoid", he's so silky smooth and seems to have beautiful hands.  But we sure could use another.

 

On defense right now, we have Milano and maybe, in flashes, Ed Oliver, maybe Rasul Douglas or he might just be a very solid high quality player?  Von Miller was a hoped-for freakazoid, but got injured and hasn't been the same.  Tre' White was a freakazoid before the ACL and looked to be coming back to form this season before the Achilles.

 

But yes, I've probably made that argument about the defense.  I think McDermott's defensive plan is to build an intricate defensive machine where all the parts work together in a way that is far greater than the sum of its parts.  The problem is if enough of the starting parts are taken out, there isn't enough freakish talent to overcome that.

 

54 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

My own sense of balancing prudence and risk is to opt for a double dip early at the position. I still think the odds of finding a playmaker talent at WR favor getting them early, so I'd prefer two lottery tickets. And I think you could get geometric payoffs, where the combination exceeds the value of each alone.

 

I can not reasonably pretend to know enough about college football and the WR prospects to tell where the balance of risk and prudence lies.  I'm just concerned, given the Rousseau/Basham debacle.

[billsfan89]

Just now, HappyDays said:

 

WRs are ranked by yards, not by targets. Shakir WAS the #1 pass catcher on the team by that metric over the last 11 games. He bested #2 and #3 by over 300 yards each. And don't make the mistake of assuming his yards per target will go up as his total targets go up. His skill set lends itself to low volume high efficiency usage. Don't mess with a good thing like we did with Gabe Davis after he excelled as the WR4 in 2020.

 

 

A lot! Do you realize we currently have zero starting caliber WRs on the roster that can play outside full time? Shakir should be in the slot 75% of the time, Samuel should be at best a 50/50 split, and the other WRs on the roster aren't even worth mentioning. We have a QB who excels at throwing outside the numbers to the intermediate area of the field better than any other QB in the league, and I repeat we have zero true outside WRs on the roster.

 

We can't screw this up. Diggs and Davis both could be planted outside. We no longer have either on the roster. So we need TWO replacements, not one. And both replacements have to be good enough to start. If we wait until the end of the 4th to find the second guy, I guess we'll have to sign OBJ or something like that just to have a functional outside passing offense. But I would rather just invest high in young players and start making up the massive under-investment we've made at that position since 2020.

 

Sorry to keep splitting hairs but your logic on Shakir not being able to take on big targets is not making sense to me. 90 targets is not a lot for Shakir as 90 targets is usually right around the second or third highest total for most teams. He took 45 targets and caught 39 receptions for 571 yards. He gave you no indication he couldn't take on a larger load given that he can go into the off-season as a starter and work with Josh and the offensive starters more. 

 

Gabe Davis is not a viable comparison here as Davis in the regular season was always a massively inefficient player from 2020-2021 in the regular season he averaged about a 56% catch rate and in 2021 he had a very high drop rate at 7.9% and even in 2020 while his drop rate was better it was not good at 4.9%. Gabe just exploded in the 2021 playoffs so the Bills banked on him building off of that one insane game in KC. What slotted Gabe in as an ideal WR3/4 was that he was a tremendous blocker and he has big play ability. But his drops and low catch rate were only going to get worse if you upped his targets which is exactly what happened. So you probably want to keep Davis as a 70ish target boundary WR and have an elite WR1 with a very good TE and slot WR so that you don't have to lean on him too much. 

 

Shakir produced an 11 game stretch in the regular season for a team mostly playing for their lives and changing their offensive coordinator and was insanely efficient. Shakir even had several games during that 11 game stretch where he wasn't on the field for 70% or more of the offensive snaps (he was on the field less than 70% of offensive snaps for 4 games and was never above 80%). Watching him he always seemed to catch the ball even as teams were keying in on him when Diggs was lesser utilized. I think if you draft a WR up high who can play on the boundary you can flex Samuel and Shakir into the slot and out of the boundary while utilizing Knox as a TE 2 to take a WR off the field. 

 

I just don't see where you find enough targets to justify a 2nd round WR after a 1st round WR selection. At best you maybe get someone 40-50 targets but I would rather take a player in the 4th to soak in those possible targets and develop while addressing a need elsewhere after you already took a WR up high. 

 

 

[ghostwriter]

16 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

WRs are ranked by yards, not by targets. Shakir WAS the #1 pass catcher on the team by that metric over the last 11 games. He bested #2 and #3 by over 300 yards each. And don't make the mistake of assuming his yards per target will stay the same as his total targets go up. His skill set lends itself to low volume high efficiency usage. Don't mess with a good thing like we did with Gabe Davis after he excelled as the WR4 in 2020.

 

 

A lot! Do you realize we currently have zero starting caliber WRs on the roster that can play outside full time? Shakir should be in the slot 75% of the time, Samuel should be at best a 50/50 split, and the other WRs on the roster aren't even worth mentioning. We have a QB who excels at throwing outside the numbers to the intermediate area of the field better than any other QB in the league, and I repeat we have zero true outside WRs on the roster.

 

We can't afford to screw this up. Diggs and Davis both could be planted outside. We no longer have either on the roster. So we need TWO replacements, not one. And both replacements have to be good enough to start. If we wait until the end of the 4th to find the second guy, I guess we'll have to sign OBJ or something like that just to have a functional outside passing offense. But I would rather just invest high in young players and start making up the massive under-investment we've made at that position since 2020.

 

Don’t forget that Beane traded our #1 WR while taking a $30M cap hit. He has a lot of skin on the line. If he doesn’t deliver, he could be in deep dog doo doo.

[Dr. Who]

2 hours ago, Beck Water said:

I can not reasonably pretend to know enough about college football and the WR prospects to tell where the balance of risk and prudence lies.  I'm just concerned, given the Rousseau/Basham debacle.

Well, given the state of our WR room today, Beane has rather backed himself into, or allowed himself, to be placed in a momentarily dangerous position. Minus WR1 and WR2, bracketing out whether Diggs was still a WR1 or Davis an adequate WR2, the overall talent is very poor relative to the rest of the NFL. Beane simply has to make a best effort play, and endure the risk of inherent uncertainty that is crystallized in the drama of sport, but part of the existential nature of choice. It's either push all your chips in on a top 3, should that option present itself, split the difference on a fella like Thomas, or double dip at #28 and a trade up from #60.

 

The folks who think there is another plan, like waiting till #60, or God forbid, even later to address the WR deficit are deceiving themselves about what we currently have, even if Kincaid becomes the fella we all hope he can be, and Samuel and Shakir are at least capable pros. 

[Kirby Jackson]

5 hours ago, BuffaloRebound said:

When it’s put into numbers like that, makes me think we sign a vet like Tyler Boyd.  Can’t count on 2 rookie WR’s getting that many targets.  

I think a vet is possible as the 2nd option. I do think though, in 2024, WRs transition in pretty seamlessly.
 

If one of the guys that they draft is a great route runner (like McConkey for example) I think that guy will see a lot of balls. If they go with raw physical skills (like Coleman for example) that guy won’t see volume early on. That’s some good for thought that really didn’t dawn on me until responding. If the Bills do have 200ish targets to go around there are certain prospects more capable of taking on a heavy target share early.

[Jimmy Harris 69]

Moving up always gives one the chance to “win the draft” in the eyes of some expert. History has shown the cost is too high, and it fails to be the difference maker (see the falcons with no trophy and see the chiefs hoisting the trophy using a bunch of what-sis). I’d be satisfied with a staying at 28 or even moving down a tad. Moving down and dealing Minnesota’s 2025 number 2 could potentially get us a starting receiver, DT and safety in rounds 2 and 3. We could then grab another receiver in round 4 or 5, in addition to staying open to veterans on the market this summer. We need edge, cb and rb help as well. McConkey, Worthy should still be in play in late round 1, the others in later rounds. This list is from cbs sports. 
 

Ladd McConkey, UGA, 6-0 / 185

 Worthy, TEXAS, 6-1 / 172

Coleman, FSU, 6-4 / 215

Baker, UCF, 6-1 / 208

Franklin, OREG, 6-3 / 187

McMillan, WASH, 6-1 / 192

Corley, WKY, 5-11 / 210

Polk WASH, 6-2 / 204

 Legette, SC, 6-3 / 227

Smith, TXAM, 5-10 / 200

Wilson, MICH, 6-0 / 192

 Cowing, ARIZ, 5-11 / 175

 

[nosejob]

14 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

We can quibble about the targets but the targets available aren’t going to be more than a 5% increase and I think a lot of the Diggs 160 target volume is not going to be absorbed just by two rookies. Shakir is going to likely have 45 more targets and Kincaid 20 more targets. That’s already chipping away 65 targets from Diggs. 

 

I think the Bills will need impact from a rookie and that’s why it is imperative they draft one with their first pick. But I do doubt that the Bills fortunes are resting on a depth WR who’s at best only going to be a WR4 and get 40-50 targets if there are no major injuries and it’s probably closer to 30 targets more likely if health is not a factor.

 

If the Bills can find a rookie to who can have a good impact and absorb 70-80 targets efficiently then I think the Bills will be in a good spot. I think they don’t have to draft a WR at pick 60 if there isn’t a good one there or the value is much greater at another position of need.

 

They can find a WR at pick 128 or 133 to add depth and take on 30-40 targets.

The first thing that popped in my head when I read the bolded was...Ladd McConkey.