Brand Beane Press Conf 4/18

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Beck, I think you're talking about of both sides of your mouth.   On the one hand, you say you want a stud #1 and you question what Beane is doing.   On the other hand, you don't want to pay someone like Aiyuk, because it might go wrong.  Well, trading up to get a stud might go wrong, too.   

 

Well, I don't see it that way, obviously, though there probably is more element of that than I'd prefer to acknowledge.  Here's what I think you're missing:

 

Yes, a draft pick might go wrong.  In fact, statistically, something like 30-50% of first round picks do go wrong, in the sense that they just don't develop into quality NFL players, let alone Superstars.  And that hurts the team that year, maybe for the next 2 years, in the form of taking up space on the roster that could be occupied by someone more productive.  There's a bit of "opportunity cost' there.  And if the team trades up - there's the opportunity cost of the extra draft picks, which, to get into the top half of the draft, could be substantial.

 

A player such as Aiyuk has shown he can play at an NFL level, so barring injury, the risk of a trade for him going wrong in the sense of not landing a guy who can actually play (as with trading for Diggs) is much lower.  But he's going to demand a large chunk of cap space, such that the "opportunity cost" if he is injured or for some reason doesn't work out for the duration of his huge contract, goes far beyond his spot on the roster.  It not only means the lost opportunity represented by the draft picks we gave up for him, but the lost opportunity to re-sign some of our own talented players or to recruit FA because he's taking up so much cap.  It's even higher than the cost of drafting a #1.

 

What I really want, of course, is for Beane and his group to have such good scouting that they can identify a potential #1 talent within easy reach of our #28 pick up or down, and then if he misses, to keep taking reasonably high value draft shots year after year until he hits.

 

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

One thing about Beane is that he's fearless.   He wasn't afraid to trade up for Allen, he wasn't afraid to trade up for Edmunds, he wasn't afraid to deal for Diggs, he wasn't afraid to go get Miller.    He's going to look at what opportunities he has, and he won't shy away from pulling the trigger.  

 

And I think you misperceive the reality of 2024 NFL offense.  A true #1 may have been necessary in 2019, but multiple offenses last season, several of the best, operated without a true #1.    One way to understand the difference between then and now is to think about whether you'd rather have Saquon Barkley or McCaffrey in you backfield.   In my mind, it's quite clear that McCaffrey is much more valuable in current NFL offenses.   Stud specialists, like Barkley and Henry, and I think Jefferson and Chase, aren't as valuable in offenses as guys who are multiple.  That's why the Bills got Cook, and that's why the Bills got Samuel.  And that's why Beane said he doesn't think he needs a true #1.   He's looking for a talented guy who is smart, athletic, can run a complex route tree, can block, etc. etc. etc.  

 

If somehow a stud #1 falls to him, great, he'll take him.  But he doesn't see it as a need. What he needs is another multi-talented guy to go with Cook, Shakir, Samuel, and Kincaid.  That's what McDermott and Brady have asked Beane to find.  

 

I remember when the Bills got Diggs, I was excited because it was, in my words, an upgrade at three positions.   They got a true #1, they got a better #2 my sliding Brown into that role, and they got a better #3 by moving Beas to his natural position.  Well, offenses don't have clear 1s, 2s, and 3s any more.   Offenses are multiple.  They want five skill players on the field, each of whom can attack all areas on the field.   The 49ers are the best example.  Neither Samuel nor Aiyuk was a true #1, but man, those two plus Kittle and McCaffrey cause headaches.  That's what Beane is after.  

 

This is very eloquent, but I'd like to know who are these "several of the best" offenses that operated without a "true #1"?  Otherwise I risk talking past you.  I would argue that the 49ers are a "different cat", in that they (like the Ravens) are a run-first team with a very even run/pass split (50% run for the '9ers, 52% for the Ravens.  Now maybe Brady sees the Bills becoming one of those teams, but if so - we're way underinvested in RB, and way overinvested in a very talented passing QB.  So I would say perhaps that wouldn't be the best use of Josh Allen's prime years.  And I would also say, Christian McCaffery is a unicorn.

 

As far as "guys who are multiple", I would agree that guys who can line up at different positions and run different routes are valuable, but I think you might be confusing ability to do this, with equal skill at all aspects of doing this.  It's true that Shakir and Samuel *can* line up outside and run downfield routes, but it's not the role Shakir has the best body type for.  It's not Samuel's best skill.  His career year to date was, I believe, 74% from the slot.  Cook has run a few routes a la Thurman Thomas and looked good at times, but with 11% drops on 54 targets, I think he has a bit to prove as a reliable receiving target.  Kincaid is the biggest dark horse.  I don't know whether the Bills think he can run downfield routes (he did in college IIRC).  They used him very close to the LOS last season with an average 5 YBC.  

 

(By the way, Jefferson has for several years been a very multiple receiver.  He's talked about this in interviews. It's how he went from 88 to 128 receptions and from 1400 to 1800 yds.  And I think 30 of 30 GMs who don't have Jefferson or Chase on their roster would sign up for that PDQ)

 

So...the Bills have on the roster right now, 4 guys who excel on the short/intermediate routes and from the slot, and Mack Hollins.  To be sure we're on the same page, by "true #1", what I believe someone like Greg Cosell means, is a guy who can stretch the field as an X, an outside or boundary receiver.  He can uncover consistently >10 yds from the LOS and force the other team to account for him in their scheme with safety help over the top, giving the underneath guys space in which to operate.  He is usually a larger guy and can bring in contested catches down the field.    He's not necessarily the guy who gets the most touches or the most targets, though.  He's the guy whose primary skill is the downfield threat (though of course it's a plus if he can line up all over).

 

I think as a defensive-minded coach, McDermott would tell you that an offense is much harder to defend when they force the defenders to cover the whole field.  And right now, the Bills do not have starting quality guy who can play outside and win downfield, either by getting open downfield or hauling in contested catches  on a regular basis.   And that's what the Bills need.  This isn't some keyboard hallucination of mine, by the way - all over the board, folks who know something are pointing this out as a gap, as are media guys I respect for their football acumen such as Greg Cosell and Lance Zierlein.

Edited April 19 by Beck Water

[Shaw66]

10 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Well, I don't see it that way, obviously, though there probably is more element of that than I'd prefer to acknowledge.  Here's what I think you're missing:

 

Yes, a draft pick might go wrong.  In fact, statistically, something like 30-50% of first round picks do go wrong, in the sense that they just don't develop into quality NFL players, let alone Superstars.  And that hurts the team that year, maybe for the next 2 years, in the form of taking up space on the roster that could be occupied by someone more productive.  There's a bit of "opportunity cost' there.  And if the team trades up - there's the opportunity cost of the extra draft picks, which, to get into the top half of the draft, could be substantial.

 

A player such as Aiyuk has shown he can play at an NFL level, so barring injury, the risk of a trade for him going wrong in the sense of not landing a guy who can actually play (as with trading for Diggs) is much lower.  But he's going to demand a large chunk of cap space, such that the "opportunity cost" if he is injured or for some reason doesn't work out for the duration of his huge contract, goes far beyond his spot on the roster.  It not only means the lost opportunity represented by the draft picks we gave up for him, but the lost opportunity to re-sign some of our own talented players or to recruit FA because he's taking up so much cap.  It's even higher than the cost of drafting a #1.

 

What I really want, of course, is for Beane and his group to have such good scouting that they can identify a potential #1 talent within easy reach of our #28 pick up or down, and then if he misses, to keep taking reasonably high value draft shots year after year until he hits.

 

 

This is very eloquent, but I'd like to know who are these "several of the best" offenses that operated without a "true #1"?  Otherwise I risk talking past you.  I would argue that the 49ers are a "different cat", in that they (like the Ravens) are a run-first team with a very even run/pass split (50% run for the '9ers, 52% for the Ravens.  Now maybe Brady sees the Bills becoming one of those teams, but if so - we're way underinvested in RB, and way overinvested in a very talented passing QB.  So I would say perhaps that wouldn't be the best use of Josh Allen's prime years.  And I would also say, Christian McCaffery is a unicorn.

 

As far as "guys who are multiple", I would agree that guys who can line up at different positions and run different routes are valuable, but I think you might be confusing ability to do this, with equal skill at all aspects of doing this.  It's true that Shakir and Samuel *can* line up outside and run downfield routes, but it's not the role Shakir has the best body type for.  It's not Samuel's best skill.  His career year to date was, I believe, 74% from the slot.  Cook has run a few routes a la Thurman Thomas and looked good at times, but with 11% drops on 54 targets, I think he has a bit to prove as a reliable receiving target.  Kincaid is the biggest dark horse.  I don't know whether the Bills think he can run downfield routes (he did in college IIRC).  They used him very close to the LOS last season with an average 5 YBC.  

 

(By the way, Jefferson has for several years been a very multiple receiver.  He's talked about this in interviews. It's how he went from 88 to 128 receptions and from 1400 to 1800 yds.  And I think 30 of 30 GMs who don't have Jefferson or Chase on their roster would sign up for that PDQ)

 

So...the Bills have on the roster right now, 4 guys who excel on the short/intermediate routes and from the slot, and Mack Hollins.  To be sure we're on the same page, by "true #1", what I believe someone like Greg Cosell means, is a guy who can stretch the field as an X, an outside or boundary receiver.  He can uncover consistently >10 yds from the LOS and force the other team to account for him in their scheme with safety help over the top, giving the underneath guys space in which to operate.  He is usually a larger guy and can bring in contested catches down the field.    He's not necessarily the guy who gets the most touches or the most targets, though.  He's the guy whose primary skill is the downfield threat (though of course it's a plus if he can line up all over).

 

I think as a defensive-minded coach, McDermott would tell you that an offense is much harder to defend when they force the defenders to cover the whole field.  And right now, the Bills do not have starting quality guy who can play outside and win downfield, either by getting open downfield or hauling in contested catches  on a regular basis.   And that's what the Bills need.  This isn't some keyboard hallucination of mine, by the way - all over the board, folks who know something are pointing this out as a gap, as are media guys I respect for their football acumen such as Greg Cosell and Lance Zierlein.

Lok, you can argue with me all you want, but what I'm telling you is what I think the Bills are doing, and what in fact Beane TOLD us he's doing.  He doesn't see a #1 guy as a necessity.  He just doesn't.   He wants a receiving corps like the 49ers, and the Lions, and the Chiefs.  Yes, Kelce is a star #1, but that's an offense that spreads the ball around to all the receivers, and one guy gets 1500 yards.  That's exactly what Beane and McDermott want.  

 

Beane has told us he doesn't need a classic #1.   Argue with it all you like, but I'm just the messenger.  

 

As for the cap hit of signing Aiyuk and the potential for failure, sure, he can get injured, but that's a risk every team takes with every high paid guy they sign.   The Bills are going to have SOME guys with big contracts.   You might not want it be Aiyuk, but there will be some.  And those guys might get injured.   Aiyuk isn't a higher risk than any of the others.   Rousseau may get a big contract soon, and he might get injured.   

 

And again, Beane is going to get the pieces he thinks he needs wherever he finds them.  He doesn't care, not very much, whether he drafts them or they are free agents.  So, I don't think he's getting Aiyuk, and I'm not even saying I would do it if I were he.  All I'm saying is that a move to get a star player would not be all that unusual for Beane.  He did it for Diggs and he did for Miller.   He'll do it again before he's done in Buffalo.  

[Mikie2times]

1 hour ago, Mark Vader said:

You really think that they would take him in the first round?

 

 

The rumors of teams in the mid to late 20's being interested are picking up.  He has had official visits with with several teams picking in the mid to late 20's. I don't think it's a stretch like it was a months ago. 

 

https://www.si.com/nfl/packers/2024-packers-draft-visits-marshawn-kneeland

 

https://atozsports.com/indianapolis/colts-2024-nfl-draft-visit-marshawn-kneeland-edge-rusher/

 

https://www.pewterreport.com/bucs-mailbag-surprise-coming-first-round-pick/

 

https://athlonsports.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/bills-central/news/nfl-mock-draft-buffalo-bills-first-round-pick-marshawn-kneeland

 

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2024-nfl-mock-draft-3-teams-trade-up-for-non-qbs-as-packers-cardinals-move-back-bears-land-franchise-qb-wr/

[Beck Water]

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Lok, you can argue with me all you want, but what I'm telling you is what I think the Bills are doing, and what in fact Beane TOLD us he's doing.  He doesn't see a #1 guy as a necessity.  He just doesn't.   He wants a receiving corps like the 49ers, and the Lions, and the Chiefs.  Yes, Kelce is a star #1, but that's an offense that spreads the ball around to all the receivers, and one guy gets 1500 yards.  That's exactly what Beane and McDermott want.  

 

Beane has told us he doesn't need a classic #1.   Argue with it all you like, but I'm just the messenger.  

 

So let me ask you this:  Do you believe him?  Because that's really what I'm trying to discuss.  It seemed as though you believe him and were advancing arguments as to why you believe that to be true.

 

If you're just the messenger, then of course, there's no point in arguing, but that seems like a segue to much of the post I responded to.  It seemed like something you believed, and were offering arguments to back up your belief.

Edited April 20 by Beck Water

[Dr. Who]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

So let me ask you this:  Do you believe him?  Because that's really what I'm trying to discuss.  It seemed as though you believe him and were advancing arguments as to why you believe that to be true.

 

If you're just the messenger, then of course, there's no point in arguing, but that seems like a segue to much of the post I responded to.  It seemed like something you believed, and were offering arguments to back up your belief.

If Beane's telling the truth, he's a terrible poker player and a damn fool. He's got to have learned something since leaving Carolina. I think he's fibbing.

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

So let me ask you this:  Do you believe him?  Because that's really what I'm trying to discuss.  It seemed as though you believe him and were advancing arguments as to why you believe that to be true.

 

If you're just the messenger, then of course, there's no point in arguing, but that seems like a segue to much of the post I responded to.  It seemed like something you believed, and were offering arguments to back up your belief.

Yes, I believe.  I've never found him to be not believable.  

 

This tear's can obsession with wideouts is like last year's with middle linebacker.  I don't think the fans understand what the team needs, and Beane does.

[Beck Water]

34 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Yes, I believe.  I've never found him to be not believable.  

 

This tear's can obsession with wideouts is like last year's with middle linebacker.  I don't think the fans understand what the team needs, and Beane does.

 

Well, that's fine, but if you believe Beane and had a whole long post advancing arguments as to why he might be right, isn't it then appropriate for others (like me) to debate your arguments, and not side-step behind "I'm just the messenger, argue with it all you like"?

 

You're entitled to just be the messenger and not asked to defend what you present (because, messenger)

You're entitled to believe Beane and present arguments you believe support what he says

 

"either or not both"

[Dr. Who]

17 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Yes, I believe.  I've never found him to be not believable.  

 

This tear's can obsession with wideouts is like last year's with middle linebacker.  I don't think the fans understand what the team needs, and Beane does.

If Beane doesn't understand that the team needs to add superior talent at WR, there's a problem. And btw, I was not one of those who was terribly worried about LB last year. Obsession is a pejorative term. Maybe you think everyone who is worried about the talent in the WR room is overwrought and that Beane has shown himself to be shrewd, and so successful that his acumen should be automatically granted the benefit of the doubt. Justin Shorter is not likely the WR equivalent of Bernard. Shakir and Samuel are not true WR2 in my estimation, nor is the collective combination of what is on the roster, plus Knox, Kincaid, and Cook a remedy for the current state of WR talent on the roster. As it stands, it is in the bottom ten of the NFL, imo.

 

Fortunately, I think Beane knows this. I also think he agrees with those "obsessed fans," but it doesn't behoove him to say so. If you're comfortable thinking that there is no urgency to significantly upgrade, that is your prerogative, but right now, they don't have a big WR to stretch the field, and I don't think they have someone to adequately fill Diggs' role down the line. Nor do I think you can just divvy up the targets to adequate WRs to make up the difference. Having a player of Diggs' quality (when he was playing well) opened up opportunities for other receivers that won't be there if you don't have a top WR to stress the defense.

 

I think they need two early picks there to develop starting now. I don't think Josh would be happy with the usual take a middle round WR Carolina tradition. Beane has built a consistent winner, but he needs more playmakers. We lose in the post-season because we lack them.

 

 

[Beck Water]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

If Beane doesn't understand that the team needs to add superior talent at WR, there's a problem. ....

I don't think Josh would be happy with the usual take a middle round WR Carolina tradition. Beane has built a consistent winner, but he needs more playmakers. We lose in the post-season because we lack them.

 

Editing to whittle down to the bones of my own concern....it's that "usual take a middle round WR Carolina tradition" Beane cut his GM teeth with, combined with his talk about "no gaping hole" in the WR group.  Add that to the WR situation Beane happily brought Allen into in 2018 (which he later admitted was a mistake), and the improvements, but not enough improvements, he made in 2020.... It's not always unreasonable to predict the way a frog (or a GM) jumps, from looking at its past jumping pattern.

I agree with you completely on the playmakers and post-season.

 

 

[Sierra Foothills]

 

Wow. Lots of dissecting Beane's sentences with multiple paragraphs.

 

6 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Maybe the conversation with Chicago will be what it will take for one of their veteran WRs.  If Chicago is looking at picking up one of the big three WRs to go with their rookie QB, then all of a sudden they look over-invested in the WR room.  K Allen, DJ Moore and now a highly touted first rounder.  Getting draft picks for one of those two veterans would then be awfully tempting.  DJ Moore was a Carolina product with a reasonable $15M salary.

 

Same logic applies for Tenn.  If they want one of the big 3 then Tenn looks over-invested with Ridley/DHop/and big 3 rookie.  DHop looks like a trade target (and he has a very reasonable $13M salary).

 

The draft capital offered for the veteran WRs would be cheap.  The Bills would still hopefully use an early pick on a WR to use and develop.

 

Interesting thought.

 

The Bills could theoretically upgrade their receiver room significantly without a heavy investment in one of the Top 3 rookie WRs or Brandon Aiyuk.

 

I see where DJ Chark (who ran a 4.34 40 at the combine) is still making free agent visits.

 

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Editing to whittle down to the bones of my own concern....it's that "usual take a middle round WR Carolina tradition" Beane cut his GM teeth with, combined with his talk about "no gaping hole" in the WR group.  Add that to the WR situation Beane happily brought Allen into in 2018 (which he later admitted was a mistake), and the improvements, but not enough improvements, he made in 2020.... It's not always unreasonable to predict the way a frog (or a GM) jumps, from looking at its past jumping pattern.

I agree with you completely on the playmakers and post-season.

 

 

Yeah, I'm counting on Beane growing past his proclivities. He may be blind to the situation based on prejudices that have some success behind them, but I find it hard to believe he can't see the problem. And Carolina ran Cam Newton into the ground. That is not a model to follow. 

[Shaw66]

11 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Well, that's fine, but if you believe Beane and had a whole long post advancing arguments as to why he might be right, isn't it then appropriate for others (like me) to debate your arguments, and not side-step behind "I'm just the messenger, argue with it all you like"?

 

You're entitled to just be the messenger and not asked to defend what you present (because, messenger)

You're entitled to believe Beane and present arguments you believe support what he says

 

"either or not both"

I get this argument from time to time.  Of course, you are entitled to your opinion.  However, once Beane says what he is thinking, i don't see much point in arguing.  I don't care much if you think the Bills need this or that if Beane doesn't agree with you.  It is just an academic argument.  And i don't have any interest in pretending that i know better than he does.

 

 

[Dr. Who]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I get this argument from time to time.  Of course, you are entitled to your opinion.  However, once Beane says what he is thinking, i don't see much point in arguing.  I don't care much if you think the Bills need this or that if Beane doesn't agree with you.  It is just an academic argument.  And i don't have any interest in pretending that i know better than he does.

 

 

That is definitely the argument from authority. I like Beane. I'm not against him, but I think you are giving him too much credit. Some Socratic irony is needed, though, of course, it's just my opinion.

Edited April 20 by Dr. Who

[Ralonzo]

On 4/18/2024 at 4:14 PM, Logic said:

The random report from Andrew Filiponi a few days ago that the Bills and Steelers swapping 1st round picks was "something to watch out for" raised my eyebrows.

It wouldn't be cost prohibitive for the Bills, it would match the M.O. of a modest round 1 trade-up that we all know Beane seems to love, and if I'm not mistaken, the Steelers need a center, and they could still likely get a JPJ or Graham Barton at 28.

If a Brian Thomas Jr or Cooper DeJean (or whomever they like) is sitting there at 20, it won't shock me one bit if this trade comes to fruition on draft night.

 

It might be cost prohibitive. Without invoking futures what the charts indicate is that something like #20 + #98 from PIT for #28 + #60 from BUF is close in value.

28 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

If Beane doesn't understand that the team needs to add superior talent at WR, there's a problem. And btw, I was not one of those who was terribly worried about LB last year. Obsession is a pejorative term. Maybe you think everyone who is worried about the talent in the WR room is overwrought and that Beane has shown himself to be shrewd, and so successful that his acumen should be automatically granted the benefit of the doubt. Justin Shorter is not likely the WR equivalent of Bernard. Shakir and Samuel are not true WR2 in my estimation, nor is the collective combination of what is on the roster, plus Knox, Kincaid, and Cook a remedy for the current state of WR talent on the roster. As it stands, it is in the bottom ten of the NFL, imo.

 

 

I'd be fine with Beane adopting whatever plan the Packers seem to be using for a productive WR assemply line where the next "Who the hell is that guy?" plugs in for 100 yards and a TD or 2.

[Dr. Who]

3 minutes ago, Ralonzo said:

 

It might be cost prohibitive. Without invoking futures what the charts indicate is that something like #20 + #98 from PIT for #28 + #60 from BUF is close in value.

 

I'd be fine with Beane adopting whatever plan the Packers seem to be using for a productive WR assemply line where the next "Who the hell is that guy?" plugs in for 100 yards and a TD or 2.

That is a popular strategy of late. I am not as confident in the Green Bay model. I'd still rather get a WR1. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it. Anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing you have to trade up for one of the big 3, or even for Thomas, though I'd like it if they got him. I do think they need two WRs early. Folks want to try something else, that's fine. I'm just stating my preference. I like McConkey. I think he can be the next Diggs. He's not Diggs. He won't have the exact vertical game, but he's silky smooth, snaps off routes, and is not a gritty slot. That is a misnomer. He's faster than many seem to think. And I think he's a volume receiver year one.

 

Then I'd like Thomas, or Mitchell, or Legette for the second early receiver. Maybe that can't be done. We might not have the picks or the opportunity to make that happen, but I would pursue trying to make it so. I don't know if that is a GB WR room or not, but if you mean wait and take a shot on Rice and McCaffrey, etc., I think that is too low an investment. It might work, but I think you're still more likely to hit with early round picks. (I like Rice and McCaffrey, btw.)

[Einstein's Dog]

8 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

Wow. Lots of dissecting Beane's sentences with multiple paragraphs.

 

 

Interesting thought.

 

The Bills could theoretically upgrade their receiver room significantly without a heavy investment in one of the Top 3 rookie WRs or Brandon Aiyuk.

 

I see where DJ Chark (who ran a 4.34 40 at the combine) is still making free agent visits.

 

My thinking is Beane would probably want to stay away from the divas wanting out, which require big money and draft capital.  Preferable to that would be the veteran WR that is expendable because the team he is on gets one of the highly touted new ones.

 

So, if Tenn takes a big 3, DHop would be a much more manageable get than say J Jeff or Aiyuk.  If Seattle takes one, D Metcalf might shake loose.  If Tampa gets a new one C Godwin may be available.  As mentioned above with Chicago- K Allen or DJ Moore become expendable.

 

Personally, I'm back on the DHop train. DHop looked like he still had the goods last year.  DHop has a cheap contract that Beane could do a lot of tricks with.

 

Beane should be working out options with Tenn prior to the draft to encourage them to take one of the big 3.  Tell Tenn if they take a WR, the Bills will give them a 4th (5th?) for Dhop.  Beane would tell Tenn If they don't take it the Bills have other options behind them (Chic, Sea, TB)  -  because as an aside no GM is believing this garbage that Beane is going to have 2 lower drafted rookies as major contributors in a prime J Allen year- it would be a complete failure as a GM.

[Shaw66]

14 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

That is a popular strategy of late. I am not as confident in the Green Bay model. I'd still rather get a WR1. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it. Anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing you have to trade up for one of the big 3, or even for Thomas, though I'd like it if they got him. I do think they need two WRs early. Folks want to try something else, that's fine. I'm just stating my preference. I like McConkey. I think he can be the next Diggs. He's not Diggs. He won't have the exact vertical game, but he's silky smooth, snaps off routes, and is not a gritty slot. That is a misnomer. He's faster than many seem to think. And I think he's a volume receiver year one.

 

Then I'd like Thomas, or Mitchell, or Legette for the second early receiver. Maybe that can't be done. We might not have the picks or the opportunity to make that happen, but I would pursue trying to make it so. I don't know if that is a GB WR room or not, but if you mean wait and take a shot on Rice and McCaffrey, etc., I think that is too low an investment. It might work, but I think you're still more likely to hit with early round picks. (I like Rice and McCaffrey, btw.)

The thing about being a dinosaur is, well, dinosaurs are dead.   They lost the Darwinian wars.   Football evolves faster than the species do.  The game keeps changing.  Nobody is looking for Bronco Nagurski any more, because the game has moved on.  Well, the Chiefs letting Tyreek Hill go was a pretty clear sign that the game, for now, anyway, has moved on from the big deep threat.  People talk about getting Metcalf.   Metcalf is a dinosaur.  (Hill isn't, because he's always been useful in the short game, too.)   

 

It seems to me that when you have four of the acknowledged great offensive minds in the game (Reid, Shanahan, McVay, and LaFLeur) all playing the game, successfully, without a classic #1 guy, yes, you might be a dinosaur. 

 

Let me back off, just a bit.  I don't know.  I don't know how to build a successful NFL offense.  I don't know what skills it takes, and which players are the right fit.   I just watch and try to understand what teams are doing, and then I try to draw conclusions about it.  What I hear from the commentators is that all the defenses are playing one- and two-high safeties to take the deep ball away, and what I see is the best offenses attacking with waves of multi-talented skill players, all orchestrated by great QBs who can throw and who can manage the offense.  So, when I hear Beane say he doesn't necessarily need the classic #1, it makes sense to me.   

[Dr. Who]

12 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

The thing about being a dinosaur is, well, dinosaurs are dead.   They lost the Darwinian wars.   Football evolves faster than the species do.  The game keeps changing.  Nobody is looking for Bronco Nagurski any more, because the game has moved on.  Well, the Chiefs letting Tyreek Hill go was a pretty clear sign that the game, for now, anyway, has moved on from the big deep threat.  People talk about getting Metcalf.   Metcalf is a dinosaur.  (Hill isn't, because he's always been useful in the short game, too.)   

 

It seems to me that when you have four of the acknowledged great offensive minds in the game (Reid, Shanahan, McVay, and LaFLeur) all playing the game, successfully, without a classic #1 guy, yes, you might be a dinosaur. 

 

Let me back off, just a bit.  I don't know.  I don't know how to build a successful NFL offense.  I don't know what skills it takes, and which players are the right fit.   I just watch and try to understand what teams are doing, and then I try to draw conclusions about it.  What I hear from the commentators is that all the defenses are playing one- and two-high safeties to take the deep ball away, and what I see is the best offenses attacking with waves of multi-talented skill players, all orchestrated by great QBs who can throw and who can manage the offense.  So, when I hear Beane say he doesn't necessarily need the classic #1, it makes sense to me.   

So, it seems to me that teams may be playing that one-and two-high safety defense because they could potentially be threatened by a deep threat. If that disappears enough from the arsenal of weapons and strategic tactics of OCs, the defense will adapt to whatever offense is dominant.

 

I don't know either, precisely, where the game is evolving, but I can only repeat my prejudice that having something akin to a traditional WR1 helps the entire WR room. Yet if one draws back from that, it's still largely a matter of semantics, imo, because I still don't think trying the "new" approach means you can dismiss the advantages of having better players at the WR position. I don't think it means having solid pass catchers with more modest ability is sufficient.

 

Let's grant provisionally that the current offenses are now going to emphasize moving pieces, those "multi-skilled" players you talk about, who are they? Does it mean getting MHJ or Nabers or Odunze is less important, or does it mean that their skills will be plugged into the new formula, and the superior talent plays out differently in terms of tactics, but recurs in terms of the better WRs still giving an edge to the team that has them? Maybe somehow this will result in the WR position being devalued somewhat akin to what has happened to RB. I am skeptical, but maybe so.

 

Regardless, Beane may see Kincaid as emerging as a significant threat. That's possible, and it wouldn't shock me. I advocated for drafting him last year with that hope. I'll be disappointed if Beane is content to go with a late round 2 WR to be the main piece in filling the WR room. I think it would be a big mistake. I've already written numerous posts on the fellas I think he should go get. Whatever happens, I'll root for Beane to be right and for the Bills to flourish.

[OldTimer1960]

14 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

That is a popular strategy of late. I am not as confident in the Green Bay model. I'd still rather get a WR1. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it. Anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing you have to trade up for one of the big 3, or even for Thomas, though I'd like it if they got him. I do think they need two WRs early. Folks want to try something else, that's fine. I'm just stating my preference. I like McConkey. I think he can be the next Diggs. He's not Diggs. He won't have the exact vertical game, but he's silky smooth, snaps off routes, and is not a gritty slot. That is a misnomer. He's faster than many seem to think. And I think he's a volume receiver year one.

 

Then I'd like Thomas, or Mitchell, or Legette for the second early receiver. Maybe that can't be done. We might not have the picks or the opportunity to make that happen, but I would pursue trying to make it so. I don't know if that is a GB WR room or not, but if you mean wait and take a shot on Rice and McCaffrey, etc., I think that is too low an investment. It might work, but I think you're still more likely to hit with early round picks. (I like Rice and McCaffrey, btw.)

I love McConkey, worry about injury at his size, but I could be pretty happy if he is the pick - but I don’t think he solves the need for a deep target, in spite of his 4.39 40.  He and maybe Legette, now we’re cooking, but that’ll cost to pull off.

[oldmanfan]

I think he’s had conversations about moving into the top 10 to get a guy like Harrison, but didn’t like what he heard.  I still think he’ll move up somewhere in round 1 to get a guy he really likes,  whether it’s a WR or not we’ll see.  To me a first round pick should go to someone you think has All-Pro potential, and if that’s at a position other than WR so be it.

Edited April 20 by oldmanfan