Dr. Who Posted April 20 Posted April 20 1 minute ago, OldTimer1960 said: 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. Yeah, I agree with that. For me, McConkey is a top 5 or 6 WR in this draft. I think you need someone that plays his "role," though the precise skill sets will differ. So, maybe Pearsall or Franklin as alternative. Then you still need that big deep threat (I don't think Franklin checks the box for both. Maybe some do.) 1 Quote
Shaw66 Posted April 20 Posted April 20 1 hour ago, Dr. Who said: 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. This is excellent. Thanks for taking the time to talk about the issue that way. All of what you say may be correct. It's all part of the evolution. I will say a couple of things. As to needing a guy who can force a safety or two deep to create the space for the others to work, that's true, but I think what we're seeing is that there are a lot of guys like Shakir, who have excellent underneath skills but with enough speed to get deep when the opening is there. Remember when it used to be amazing if a guy ran 3.4? It seems like every time you turn around there's another guy who's sub 3.4. I think the current operating system for these passing offense is to be so good as to force the safeties down and still good enough to be able to attack deep because the safeties are compromised. Tyreek Hill is the interesting opposite example - a guy who's deep speed is blinding and who will eat you up in the underneath game, if that's you give him. Yes, either philosophy will work, but it seems like underneath guys with enough speed are currently the offenses to beat. I literally don't know anything about any of the guys in the draft, but I think what you say is the big question for scouts and GMs. Is this guy a one-trick pony playing against weaker competition in college, and if he is, can he learn to do the other things we need him to do? You seem to suggest, and I have no reason not to believe it, that at least the big three have what it takes to play however the game dictates. In the case of the Bills, one other thing I've been thinking is that if, as he says, Beane doesn't feel it's necessary to get a stud number one, I think that also means McDermott and Brady don't either. I mean, one might expect that Brady, having been the OC for Justin Jefferson and Ja'Maar Chase, would be all in favor of the stud #1 theory. And one might expect that sometime while he was the interim OC, the three of them (Brady and McBeane) would have discussed that question of current football philosophy. I don't think Brady would have gotten the OC job if he said he needed a stud, unless McBeane agreed. I think the Bills are all-in on an offense that attacks all over the field with five superior, multi-skilled players. Samuel, Shakir, and (I think) an athletic rookie all will take defenses deep but will be nightmares underneath, even Kincaid to some extent. Cook will present similar problems. Knox will provide just enough support on the blocking side and be a receiving threat in his own right. In some ways, they'll be receivers who play like McDermott wrestled - just intensely competitive athletes, all over the field, making every play they can possibly make - catching passes, making runs, blocking, everything. 2 2 Quote
Shaw66 Posted April 20 Posted April 20 17 hours ago, Dr. Who said: 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. I say this from time to time: My perspective about the Bills is I listen to Beane and McDermott, I watch what they do, and then I try to understand what that tells me about how they're thinking about the game. To the extent I think I figure it out, I then think about whether it makes sense - not whether it's right or wrong, just whether it makes sense. If it makes sense to me, then I'm happy and I wait for the games with an understanding of what it will look like if it works. If it doesn't make sense, than I'm anxious and I'm prepared for mediocre results. I will readily admit that since McBeane arrived, it's pretty much all made sense to me. I think they are executing at a very level a methodology and plans to build a continuously successful team that wins Super Bowls. I think that time is coming. 3 Quote
GASabresIUFan Posted April 20 Posted April 20 (edited) There has to be a great deal of motivation for Beane to trade down this year. He was expecting a 3rd rd compensatory pick and he got screwed by the NFL. Now he has to find a way to replace that pick. Given the depth at WR, I can easily see a move down from 28 or from 60 to help replace that missing 3rd. He mentioned adding a ready to play DL in the draft. We also need a safety and a starting WR. Hard to get all that accomplished with only 2 top 100 picks. I know he said he doesn't want to trade the 2nd rd pick he acquired for Diggs, but that doesn't mean our 2nd rd or 3rd rd pick in 2025 isn't available. GB (5) and ARI (6) have a ton of top 100 picks. They could be perfect candidates to want to defer one of those selections to 2025. Last season Den traded to Sea a 2023 4th (108) and a 2024 3rd (81) for a 2023 3rd (83). Given our 2 4th rd picks in 2024 and 2 2nd rd picks in 2025, it seems to me it shouldn’t be to hard to get an extra 2nd or 3rd in 2024. Edited April 20 by GASabresIUFan Quote
Dr. Who Posted April 20 Posted April 20 1 minute ago, Shaw66 said: I say this from time to time: My perspective about the Bills is I listen to Beane and McDermott, I watch what they do, and then I try to understand what that tells me about how they're thinking about the game. To the extent I think I figure it out, I then think about whether it makes sense - not whether it's right or wrong, just whether it makes sense. If it makes sense to me, then I'm happy and I wait for the games with an understanding of what it will look like if it works. If it doesn't make sense, than I'm anxious and I'm prepared for mediocre results. I will readily admit that since McBeane arrived, it's pretty much all made sense to me. I think they are executing at a very level a methodology and plans to build a continuously successful team that wins Super Bowls. I think that time is coming. So, I hope you're right. My fear, I guess, is that they have an excellent formula for winning in the regular season, but it falls short in the post-season. I know they were bedeviled with injury last year, and still came close. A number of folks have opined that they need more elite playmakers on both sides of the ball. It doesn't have to be an enormous amount, but one more on each side of the ball would help a lot. A player like Kincaid or Cook might grow into that player. When Milano is healthy, he's borderline that player. You can find that player in the draft without trading up into the top 10. Anyway, I'm putting some markers down on Thomas, McConkey, and Legette. Those are the WRs I like best outside the top 3, and I'd be happy with one or two of them. There are other positions that need addressing, and I'm sure Beane has multiple strategies based on how the draft plays out. I still expect to be a Super Bowl contender next year. I do not see it as an inevitable down year, though it is a reset of sorts with all the veteran turnover. 1 2 Quote
Shaw66 Posted April 20 Posted April 20 37 minutes ago, Dr. Who said: So, I hope you're right. My fear, I guess, is that they have an excellent formula for winning in the regular season, but it falls short in the post-season. I know they were bedeviled with injury last year, and still came close. A number of folks have opined that they need more elite playmakers on both sides of the ball. It doesn't have to be an enormous amount, but one more on each side of the ball would help a lot. A player like Kincaid or Cook might grow into that player. When Milano is healthy, he's borderline that player. You can find that player in the draft without trading up into the top 10. Anyway, I'm putting some markers down on Thomas, McConkey, and Legette. Those are the WRs I like best outside the top 3, and I'd be happy with one or two of them. There are other positions that need addressing, and I'm sure Beane has multiple strategies based on how the draft plays out. I still expect to be a Super Bowl contender next year. I do not see it as an inevitable down year, though it is a reset of sorts with all the veteran turnover. I think everything you say here is correct. I've been saying for months that they Bills one or two more marquee players, almost any position. They need a couple of guys (besides Allen) who makes some plays, just once in a while, that no one else makes. And it certainly would be fine with me if he turned out to be a receiver. I have a slightly different take on McDermott and the postseason. I think McBeane have done exactly what they said they were going to do, which is something that they will build a team that continues to get better until it wins a Super Bowl and then stays at that very high level. I think McDermott thinks about it every day, and he plans to build core competencies that become part of the culture. Of course, they aren't done, but they aren't just executing over again what it took for them to get good in the first place. They're building, always focused on their goal. I have great confidence that they'll succeed. Might not, of course, but I don't get the feeling not succeeding is an option for them. The night Hamlin fell to the ground, one of the ESPN talking heads, maybe an hour into trying to cover what was happening, mentioned that this is why pursuing your degree and the whole college experience is important, because you never know when your career might be cut short. A former player said that when he was in college, football was his life. Someone told him that he needed a Plan B. The former player said there is no Plan B, there is only Plan A, and if you have a Plan B, you probably aren't making it. McBeane have no Plan B. 1 Quote
Beck Water Posted April 20 Posted April 20 18 hours 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. Here's the thing though, Shaw. And I intend this respectfully, because I do respect you as a poster. You made a whole long post. It's not just about what Beane says. It's about what, in your opinion, Beane means by what he says. I'll bold. On 4/19/2024 at 1:02 PM, 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. 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. I took the time and trouble to ask questions, give perspective from what I see, etc etc and you come back with this: On 4/19/2024 at 3:04 PM, 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. Look, you just wrote a whole screed about YOUR OPINION. Not limited to what Beane said, but this whole screed about "the reality of 2024 NFL offense" and how a number 1 isn't necessary any more", on and on and on. YOUR OPINION, after telling me I "misperceive the reality of 2024 offense" But when I tried to have a discussion about that and bring up examples - you side-step discussion saying "you're just the messenger" and there's no point in arguing, you're just telling me what Beane told us he's doing - No, Man. That's not what you're doing. You went way beyond what Beane said, into inferring your beliefs about why he said it, how modern NFL offenses operate or want to operate, etc etc. You're giving your opinion about the reality of 2024 NFL offense and what it needs, using SF as an example, which is actually IMO an anomolous offense, one of 2. You're stating that Jefferson isn't multiple and isn't as valuable as guys who are multiple - on and on. You're entitled to your opinion. You're also entltled to decline to discuss your opinion with me, or with anyone. But be honest about what you're doing. Otherwise what you're saying is "I can assert whatever I want to assert about NFL offenses in 2024 and it's inarguable because BEANE SAYS." That's baloney. Sorry, that's what it is. Quote
Shaw66 Posted April 21 Posted April 21 1 hour ago, Beck Water said: Here's the thing though, Shaw. And I intend this respectfully, because I do respect you as a poster. You made a whole long post. It's not just about what Beane says. It's about what, in your opinion, Beane means by what he says. I'll bold. I took the time and trouble to ask questions, give perspective from what I see, etc etc and you come back with this: Look, you just wrote a whole screed about YOUR OPINION. Not limited to what Beane said, but this whole screed about "the reality of 2024 NFL offense" and how a number 1 isn't necessary any more", on and on and on. YOUR OPINION, after telling me I "misperceive the reality of 2024 offense" But when I tried to have a discussion about that and bring up examples - you side-step discussion saying "you're just the messenger" and there's no point in arguing, you're just telling me what Beane told us he's doing - No, Man. That's not what you're doing. You went way beyond what Beane said, into inferring your beliefs about why he said it, how modern NFL offenses operate or want to operate, etc etc. You're giving your opinion about the reality of 2024 NFL offense and what it needs, using SF as an example, which is actually IMO an anomolous offense, one of 2. You're stating that Jefferson isn't multiple and isn't as valuable as guys who are multiple - on and on. You're entitled to your opinion. You're also entltled to decline to discuss your opinion with me, or with anyone. But be honest about what you're doing. Otherwise what you're saying is "I can assert whatever I want to assert about NFL offenses in 2024 and it's inarguable because BEANE SAYS." That's baloney. Sorry, that's what it is. Sorry to have offended you. I'm not sure what the point is. Yes, I think I'm correct about modern NFL offenses and all, and yes, they are thoughts I've developed from listening to others and observing how the Bills are being built. Yes, there are some things I read into what Beane says, but I think they are fair and logical. Like Brady also must agree that they don't need a true #1. I don't see how it could be any other way. As I keep saying, I don't know what's going to happen, who the Bills are going to add to the receiver, or what the strategy they Bills will employ on offense. However, my observations suggest to me the things I've said. Again, sorry you're upset about what you seem to think is my unwillingness to own up to something. I'm not trying argue with you. I'm just saying what I see. 1 Quote
GunnerBill Posted April 21 Posted April 21 5 hours ago, Shaw66 said: Like Brady also must agree that they don't need a true #1. I don't see how it could be any other way. It could be any other way because they assessed the roster and decided the #1 they had was no longer worth what came along with him. Joe Brady either wanted to be the OC that works with Josh Allen or he didn't. If he did he had to accept that they were trading Diggs, didn't have the ability to acquire a proven #1 in FA or a trade because of their cap and therefore their only shot at that type of guy is hitting it out of the park with a rookie. What Beane said was not - we don't need a number 1 (and McDermott's presser basically said ideally you have one) - he said you don't need a number 1 for the offense to function. That's true. But he definitely didn't say you don't need one for the offense to be at its top level. 1 Quote
Beck Water Posted April 21 Posted April 21 14 hours ago, Shaw66 said: Sorry to have offended you. I'm not sure what the point is. Yes, I think I'm correct about modern NFL offenses and all, and yes, they are thoughts I've developed from listening to others and observing how the Bills are being built. Yes, there are some things I read into what Beane says, but I think they are fair and logical. Like Brady also must agree that they don't need a true #1. I don't see how it could be any other way. As I keep saying, I don't know what's going to happen, who the Bills are going to add to the receiver, or what the strategy they Bills will employ on offense. However, my observations suggest to me the things I've said. Again, sorry you're upset about what you seem to think is my unwillingness to own up to something. I'm not trying argue with you. I'm just saying what I see. Then let me spell it out to you once more. Above, you acknowledge that in fact, you were giving your opinions and thoughts and what you read into what Beane says, which you believe to be fair and logical. OK- but then, this is a discussion board, and others are entitled to disagree with your opinion about "modern NFL offenses", to think that in bringing up McCaffery and the 49ers you are bringing up a Unicorn, a Unicorn player on one of two modern NFL teams with a successful run-first approach that differs from the modern NFL offensive approach 29 other teams, and the one which asks the QB only to be a good decision maker and ball distributor (why Shanahan has found strong success with many different QB). Others can also disagree with your "fair and logical" reading into what Beane says. But then, to dismiss someone who tries to debate your personal thoughts and opinions with you, "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" "Argue with it all you like, but I'm just the messenger" and "However, once Beane says what he is thinking, i don't see much point in arguing" is logically fallacious, when much of your post is actually not derived from that Appeal to Authority. I don't want to whale a dead horse, but since you acknowledged that you were actually giving your personal opinion and thoughts about NFL offenses and observations about the Bills as well as what you read into what Beane said, yet still claim "I don't see what the point is", I thought I'd give it a go. You can be interested in discussing your opinion and thoughts and what you read into Beane's words, you can be disinterested in discussing your opinion and thoughts and what you read into Beane's words, but to cut off discussion by an appeal to Beane's Words as an Authority you now acknowledge you went well beyond, Eh. I'd be happy to accept your apology and I'm not gonna carry a bone or beat a dead horse, except if you're "not sure what the point is", it seems like "form without function". Quote
Beck Water Posted April 21 Posted April 21 18 hours ago, Dr. Who said: So, I hope you're right. My fear, I guess, is that they have an excellent formula for winning in the regular season, but it falls short in the post-season. I know they were bedeviled with injury last year, and still came close. A number of folks have opined that they need more elite playmakers on both sides of the ball. It doesn't have to be an enormous amount, but one more on each side of the ball would help a lot. A player like Kincaid or Cook might grow into that player. When Milano is healthy, he's borderline that player. You can find that player in the draft without trading up into the top 10. Anyway, I'm putting some markers down on Thomas, McConkey, and Legette. Those are the WRs I like best outside the top 3, and I'd be happy with one or two of them. There are other positions that need addressing, and I'm sure Beane has multiple strategies based on how the draft plays out. I still expect to be a Super Bowl contender next year. I do not see it as an inevitable down year, though it is a reset of sorts with all the veteran turnover. I agree with your fear completely, as I think I've laid out elsewhere. I think McDermott's core defensive philosophy is to have a whole of "selfless guys" that work together and are far greater than the sum of the parts. I think that has shown itself very able to earn regular season wins and to be substitution-tolerant at many positions, but it has fallen short against the best teams playing at a frenzied level in the playoffs. In acquiring Von Miller and re-upping Tre White as well as in drafting Elam (to presumably upgrade from a "White plus a JAG" 2ndary), Beane and McDermott themselves acknowledged "we need a few stars". The problem is, they couldn't forsee both Miller and White derailed by injury (White repeatedly). So we need to set ourselves up to move on and reload, and part of that is shedding cap this season. [I think the jury is still out on Elam, but obviously for his first 2 years that didn't work out, either.] On offense, we need IMO 2 guys. Whether that's someone we draft or a late FA signing, or whether Shakir, Kincaid, and Cook take steps, can't tell you. I agree with you that we could still contend for a Super Bowl in 2024, but that will depend upon a few key points. One of them is getting a functional pass rush from somewhere, whether that's Miller returning to form, Rousseau and Epenesa stepping up, or a draft/FA acquisition. Another, I think, is whether Josh Allen successfully transitions from being the guy who directed 42% of his throws to Diggs and Davis (241 out of 579 including spikes and throw aways), to being the guy who takes the choice with the higher % of success just a bit more often. He alluded to that at the end of his presser and mentioned "conversation with other QB". It was noted that prior to 2020 when Josh took a big step to overhaul his throwing motion, he was said to have dug into several QB who had improved their throwing motion during their careers, and picked them clean about what he needed to do to improve in the course of a couple dinners. So I think that "conversation with other QB" is worth noting, and may be worth noting that Tom Brady is one of the QB Josh has spent some off season time with. While Brady has been public in loving Josh and wanting to see him win a SB, I'm certain he would not hold back if they spoke privately. If Josh has decided to dedicate himself to becoming a better "field general' and mental student of the game in the same way he dedicated himself to becoming a better rotational thrower of the football with proper hip-shoulder-arm sequencing, expect great things. Time Will Tell, but no longer having Diggs there clamoring for the HIM share of the targets may help. 1 Quote
Shaw66 Posted April 21 Posted April 21 33 minutes ago, Beck Water said: I'd be happy to accept your apology and I'm not gonna carry a bone or beat a dead horse, except if you're "not sure what the point is", it seems like "form without function". You've been beating that horse for a while now. I've already apologized. If you think it was hollow because I don't accept your version of the universe, I'm sorry for that, too, but an apology requires only that I understand that I've made you unhappy, not that internalize your complaint and be eternally remorseful. I think I understand what Beane, McDermott, and Brady are trying to do with the offense, and it makes sense to me. If I were the GM, would I be doing what Beane is doing? I don't know. You would be doing something else. And, frankly, what seems to be bothering you is that I don't buy your argument. I don't buy it simply because I have great respect for expertise, and I value the expertise of successful professionals in their field. Quote
Dr. Who Posted April 21 Posted April 21 28 minutes ago, Beck Water said: I agree with your fear completely, as I think I've laid out elsewhere. I think McDermott's core defensive philosophy is to have a whole of "selfless guys" that work together and are far greater than the sum of the parts. I think that has shown itself very able to earn regular season wins and to be substitution-tolerant at many positions, but it has fallen short against the best teams playing at a frenzied level in the playoffs. In acquiring Von Miller and re-upping Tre White as well as in drafting Elam (to presumably upgrade from a "White plus a JAG" 2ndary), Beane and McDermott themselves acknowledged "we need a few stars". The problem is, they couldn't forsee both Miller and White derailed by injury (White repeatedly). So we need to set ourselves up to move on and reload, and part of that is shedding cap this season. [I think the jury is still out on Elam, but obviously for his first 2 years that didn't work out, either.] On offense, we need IMO 2 guys. Whether that's someone we draft or a late FA signing, or whether Shakir, Kincaid, and Cook take steps, can't tell you. I agree with you that we could still contend for a Super Bowl in 2024, but that will depend upon a few key points. One of them is getting a functional pass rush from somewhere, whether that's Miller returning to form, Rousseau and Epenesa stepping up, or a draft/FA acquisition. Another, I think, is whether Josh Allen successfully transitions from being the guy who directed 42% of his throws to Diggs and Davis (241 out of 579 including spikes and throw aways), to being the guy who takes the choice with the higher % of success just a bit more often. He alluded to that at the end of his presser and mentioned "conversation with other QB". It was noted that prior to 2020 when Josh took a big step to overhaul his throwing motion, he was said to have dug into several QB who had improved their throwing motion during their careers, and picked them clean about what he needed to do to improve in the course of a couple dinners. So I think that "conversation with other QB" is worth noting, and may be worth noting that Tom Brady is one of the QB Josh has spent some off season time with. While Brady has been public in loving Josh and wanting to see him win a SB, I'm certain he would not hold back if they spoke privately. If Josh has decided to dedicate himself to becoming a better "field general' and mental student of the game in the same way he dedicated himself to becoming a better rotational thrower of the football with proper hip-shoulder-arm sequencing, expect great things. Time Will Tell, but no longer having Diggs there clamoring for the HIM share of the targets may help. We normally agree a great deal, and that is the case here as well. All you can do is hope about Elam. He is sunk cost. The problem there, it has seemed to me, is scheme fit. Then there were injuries, and I think he lost his confidence. He seemed to have trouble often even where his strengths lie. Anyway, I'm not giving up on the fella. I still believe he has traits that could lead to a successful career -- I just hope it is with us if it happens. I have been pushing for 2 WRs in the top 40, because all the players I like are probably gone by the mid-second round. That would entail at least the cost of one of our 2025 seconds. For the right fellas, it's worth it. Maybe this is the last time I will indicate my reasoning, as it will be tedious to keep hearing me say it, but I think McConkey can take many of Diggs' snaps. He's much more an outside receiver than folks credit, though not a big X type, obviously. He's the best route runner in the class, and faster and more athletic than a lot of folks think. I think he's a volume receiver year one. Then I'd like to pair him with that big boundary receiver. If you could do it, you'd trade up for Thomas, but then you're probably not getting McConkey. I think Mitchell and Legette are possible early second, and Legette in particular is someone I would target in a trade up. However it plays out, I concur that Beane needs to add two WRs with potential to be difference makers in the WR room. Legette will take more time, but I think he has a reasonably high ceiling, and brings a versatile skill set. He could be DK Metcalf intimidating to tackle. I'm not sanguine about the edge players in the draft. If you draft one early, you are most likely reaching. Verse and Turner aren't falling, and Latu is a medical risk I would not choose above WR. I think it's the worst position group in the draft, and would only take day 3 fliers, unless Beane has already gotten WR help and manufactures another day 2 pick. That would be my preference, in any event. All that means internal growth and maybe a late FA pickup is where I would place most of my modest hopes on that aspect of the DL. If Von does anything, I will be surprised. I like what you have to say about Josh. I don't believe those who think his character has radically changed. I think he has always been an empathetic, good-natured fellow who is also ultra-competitive. I'm sure there were some personal relationship traumas that distracted him, because athletes are also human beings, and obviously the relationship with Diggs went sideways. There's no point in speculating all the reasons. I believe that Josh will now be a more dominant figure. He will be the veteran, elite franchise qb with younger WRs, even if they end up bringing in a veteran post-draft. It makes sense to me that he would ask a lot of questions and listen attentively to Tom Brady. That cerebral, analytic approach is something that Josh can improve upon, and I think he has the intelligence and desire to do so. I don't think he is complacently aware that Mahomes has three rings and he has none. I don't think he is just happily playing golf and hanging out with his Hollywood girlfriend with no passion for adding to his talent and winning. It's so very easy for critics to cast aspersions that cost them nothing, and hard to achieve difficult things. 1 Quote
Beck Water Posted April 21 Posted April 21 1 hour ago, Shaw66 said: You've been beating that horse for a while now. I've already apologized. If you think it was hollow because I don't accept your version of the universe, I'm sorry for that, too, but an apology requires only that I understand that I've made you unhappy, not that internalize your complaint and be eternally remorseful. I think I understand what Beane, McDermott, and Brady are trying to do with the offense, and it makes sense to me. If I were the GM, would I be doing what Beane is doing? I don't know. You would be doing something else. And, frankly, what seems to be bothering you is that I don't buy your argument. I don't buy it simply because I have great respect for expertise, and I value the expertise of successful professionals in their field. Oh, FFS. You said "I'm not sure what the point is". So I tried to explain. The false dichotomy between issuing an apology that isn't based on understanding the point, vs. "internalize and be eternally remorseful", is a bit much, don't you think? Ciao. Quote
Beck Water Posted April 22 Posted April 22 (edited) I thought about starting a new thread, but it's appropriate here. Joe B starts his annual series on the draft https://theathletic.com/5430707/2024/04/22/buffalo-bills-2024-nfl-draft-files/ Some key points He compares and contrasts what Beane said in this presser vs 2022, when we traded up to draft Kaiir Elam: Quote “We have not filled a number one role. I would say we have a group of guys as we sit here today, that we believe bring different skill sets. We like the group. You know, would we like to add to it at some point? Yes. But, I’m not sitting here thinking we have a glaring hole. But I get the question. I get the perception.” “I don’t think having a one or not having a one doesn’t mean we can’t have success, you know, on offense or as a team.” “Now that Josh is ascended to the player he is, is [having a No. 1 WR] a requirement? I don’t think so.” Reading all that, you would think the Bills have convinced themselves that their wide receiver room doesn’t need a grandiose addition. I found it interesting to return to this same press conference only two years ago. Joe points out the analogy to 2022, when top CB Tre White was injured and likely unavailable for the next season, #2 CB had left in FA, and we had a capable backup CB in Dane Jackson who had stepped up when asked (he makes the analogy to Diggs traded, #2 WR Davis left in FA, and Shakir as that capable 3rd WR: Quote Just two years ago, the Bills were in a similar spot where the writing appeared to be on the wall for their top pick. At cornerback, 2021 starter Levi Wallace left the team via free agency, and their top cornerback Tre’Davious White suffered a torn ACL late in the season. As we know now, White returned late into 2022 and wasn’t the same player until the beginning of 2023. It’s as close a case as this offseason and being without both Diggs and Davis. And they even had a Shakir type, in the form of then-third-year player Dane Jackson. In that pre-draft press conference, the questions about cornerback came early. Some of the highlights from Beane in 2022: Quote “We don’t feel like, ‘We’ve got to get this, or we’ve got to get that.'” “I get the question. I’m not saying you’re out of line, but I’ve got a lot of confidence in Dane and the guys here too. I mean, he’s played for us two years in a row and I’m a fan. I think he’s done a really good job. And I think again, how we build this thing as well, we build it up front. And so, part of that is, you know, if you’re strong up front, you can help your back end.” He emphasized they liked what they already had on the team. He also discussed a notion of why finding that specific position may be a little devalued to them. In this case, that involved their focus on the defensive line. The result in 2022 was that the Bills not only drafted a CB, but they traded up to draft a CB. Joe B goes on to lay out Beane's track record as far as trading up: Quote By now, you probably understand what Beane is all about. He has a history of trading up. He did it for Josh Allen, Tremaine Edmunds, Cody Ford, Dawson Knox, Zack Moss, Kaiir Elam, Khalil Shakir and Dalton Kincaid. That’s eight times in six drafts, four in the first round. To his credit, he actually has traded down during one draft, doing so twice in the 2022 second round before taking James Cook. I will say that with the exception of Josh Allen where Beane steadily built draft capital prior to the draft and even worked a trade to move up 9 spots using a player, Beane's trade-ups are usually "use a 4th round pick to move up a few spots", not "Big Splash Trade Ups". Joe justifiably concludes that despite what he says, Beane is most likely to trade up based on past behavior. Joe does point out that the Bills are in a bit of a different spot this off-season. In the past several off seasons, most of the starting roster spots have pretty much been "locked down" prior to the draft, but this year, only 33 of 53 players returned. So IMO, there may be more chances for a 4th round pick to make the roster and contribute, making that pick more valuable to Beane and Beane less likely to trade it. Anyway, thought it was an interesting read, especially the analogy to 2022 and what Beane said before the draft about CB (praised the players we still had, pointed out his philosophy of build from the lines out) vs. his draft day actions (trading up for a CB) Edit: one of the things I like about Joe B even when I disagree with him, is that he's methodical and backs up his takes. In this case, he includes draft trade value info and assesses which teams would be plausible trade targets. I think the Athletic has some kind of cheap trial deal, or can be packaged with a Times subscription if one rolls that way. Edited April 22 by Beck Water 1 3 Quote
Beck Water Posted April 22 Posted April 22 Another assessment of Beane's trade-up habits, this one from TBN by Ryan O'Halloran https://buffalonews.com/sports/professional/nfl/bills/buffalo-bills-brandon-beane-nfl-draft/article_db2bf4ac-fe54-11ee-b5ab-47c3d31b4ca2.html The most interesting thing to me is that he rates Elam as a "push" resulting from a trade up. Quote 2022: Moved up two spots to No. 23 to draft cornerback Kaiir Elam. The Bills traded Nos. 25 and 130 to Baltimore. Push. Elam started six games as a rookie (with two interceptions), but an ankle injury derailed his second season (three games). He has two interceptions in four playoff games. This is a big year for Elam. Can he challenge Christian Bedford for the starting spot opposite Rasul Douglas? Anyway, it's an assessment based soley on the result (whether or not we got a great or a good player) and not on the opportunity cost (whether a great or good player might have been available at our original pick, and with the pick we used in the trade) Take it FWIW. Quote
Sierra Foothills Posted April 23 Posted April 23 12 hours ago, Beck Water said: Edit: one of the things I like about Joe B even when I disagree with him, is that he's methodical and backs up his takes. In this case, he includes draft trade value info and assesses which teams would be plausible trade targets. I think the Athletic has some kind of cheap trial deal, or can be packaged with a Times subscription if one rolls that way. Agree or disagree with Buscaglia, he's a very hard-working guy who puts a lot of research and energy into his craft. I won't name names but there are many Bills beat writers from days of yore (who are household names among Bills fans) who I thought were lazy journalists. Joe B. can look at himself at the end of the day and feel assured that he gave it an honest day's work. That's more than many beat writers can say. I like O'Halloran too but I suspect he and some of the Buffalo News writers are constrained by their word count limits. The Buffalo News just doesn't produce articles that you can sink your teeth into anymore often because they're too short. BN sportswriters don't even attempt to finish their pieces with a kicker... the stories just end abruptly. 1 Quote
Alphadawg7 Posted April 26 Author Posted April 26 (edited) On 4/18/2024 at 12:58 PM, Alphadawg7 said: https://www.buffalobills.com/video/your-team-has-to-evolve-bills-general-manager-brandon-beane-speaks-ahead-of-the-2024-nfl-draft-buffalo-bills Take aways: I do not think Beane is even thinking about moving into the top 10 to get one of the big 3 WR. He said he would take any call, but he also said teams in the top 10 don't generally call teams down at 28. When asked about him calling them, he mocked them even wanting to take his call and made it clear he hasn't called them. Worth noting as well, Bills have no reported visits or meetings with MHJ, Nabers, or Odunze. We did reportedly meet once with Thomas. He is not a fan at all of moving a future first, which I will cover in comments below. I think he made it pretty clear as well that we are not going to be trading for a proven guy such as Aiyuk or Higgins as many have been wanting. Specifically said when we traded for Stef, Allen was an ascending player and the offense needed a guy like that. But that now with Allen ascended to the player he is, that is not a requirement and not necessary. He made it clear he is very comfortable making a small trade up to make sure he can get the guy he covets. So if there is one he wants where a small move up to go get him is on the table, I think he will pull that trigger. He also made it very clear he really does NOT want to move next years 1st, but did admit he would if the deal made sense to do it. Referenced regretting those kind of moves in the next draft when they did them in Carolina when the next draft came and the guy they gave up that first didn't really get them over the top. He also doesn't plan to move the 2nd we got for Diggs, but wouldn't rule it out if they felt the right deal was there. Between Josh, McD and Beane interviews, I think it was pretty clear they have a lot of confidence in the core of Samuel, Shakir, Kincaid, Knox, and Cook. It is clear we are going after a WR in first 2 rounds, but I would not expect us to go back to back WR or take 2 early as some around here have suggested. If we take a 2nd one, I would expect it later like rounds 4 and on. Beane made it clear that trading back is very much in play at 28 and pointed out if they couldn't get Kincaid they had a real good trade back worked out he really liked. Also added he would love to add someone on the DL that can contribute this season. While he said it could be in the first, would have to see what is there at 28 in general, but went on to say he sees guys outside the first in this draft that can come in and contribute this year. So what I came away with is that I think there is very little chance we are making a move to get MHJ, Nabers, or Odunze. It was also clear it was just as unlikely we are going after someone like Aiyuk, Higgins, etc either. And that has been my belief all along as well. While I wouldn't say that anything he said rules out moving up into the teens to get Thomas (like say Jags at 17), I think it's a low possibility he goes up outside the 20's. The thing that most often stuck out was the reluctance on using high future picks to move up. I think Beane really likes the idea of having a first and two 2nd's next year and really prefers not trading them. And I do think that trading back is a very strong possibility for us to try and get a 3rd this year or maybe even a third 2nd for next year. All in all this was a good listen...and Beane has a track record for being pretty straight forward and candid on these things, so I think he is shooting pretty straight with his comments like he always has. I would say this aged pretty well and I was pretty spot on. And here is Beane basically echoing the same things tonight after round 1 where he said he never even tried to trade up and no one called him either to try and initiate us to trade up. He even directly references wanting to get a 3rd back as I mentioned above and how now we have pick 95 and the pick we gave up for Rasul was like pick 91, so we essentially got that pick back. Like I keep saying, all you have to do is listen to Beane and pay attention, he is about as straight forward as they come. Or don't and rely on bogus twitter nonsense designed to create buzz and clicks...but I think you will find Beanes own words to be more accurate than anything on social media. Edited April 26 by Alphadawg7 6 1 2 Quote
Billy Claude Posted April 26 Posted April 26 2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said: I would say this aged pretty well and I was pretty spot on. And here is Beane basically echoing the same things tonight after round 1 where he said he never even tried to trade up and no one called him either to try and initiate us to trade up. He even directly references wanting to get a 3rd back as I mentioned above and how now we have pick 95 and the pick we gave up for Rasul was like pick 91, so we essentially got that pick back. Like I keep saying, all you have to do is listen to Beane and pay attention, he is about as straight forward as they come. Or don't and rely on bogus twitter nonsense designed to create buzz and clicks...but I think you will find Beanes own words to be more accurate than anything on social media. Agree. Beane usually gives you a good idea of the broad strokes of his thinking and very rarely tells an outright lie. Definitely much less likely to tell a bald face lie than other GMs. The only exception I can think of is the Kair Elam year when he claimed the Bills were not lasered focused on a CB when they clearly were. 1 Quote
Back2Buff Posted April 26 Posted April 26 I tried to warn people years ago about Beane. No one wanted to listen. Where would this team be if Cleve takes Allen? 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.