Why the Bills don't "need" a traditional X receiver

[Mikey152]

Problem Statement:  On various message board threads and draft analysis shows/tweets/articles, the Bills have been noted as needing an X receiver. This is likely due to the loss of Gabriel Davis and Stephon Diggs this offseason.

 

My Take:  This is a very simplistic take, and doesn't really take into account the Bills full roster makeup.

 

Why is that my take???

The Short Version:  Dalton Kincaid and Dawson Knox

The Long Version:  Most roster construction on offense is based on a fairly simple rule around what is and isn't a legal formation. All offenses, no matter how original, must have 7 or more players on the LOS for at least one second before the snap. The two players on either end must be eligible receivers, and everyone between them is ineligible. So almost every formation in the NFL has 5 OL, 2 Ends and 4 Backs. Anything else takes an eligible receiver off the board, and is usually only reserved for goal line/short yardage.

 

Why does this matter? Well, ends traditionally come in two types...Tight and Split. In other words, guys that line up close to the ball/OL and guys that don't. Every team has two of them on the field at all times, but there is no rule that says there needs to be one of each or how far a from the line a split end is. Also important to note before we talk about the Bills is that there are all kinds of backs...quarterbacks, running backs (half, full, tail, etc) and slot backs (fyi, flanker is just a term for a half back that lined up wide of the end and existed before forward passes were even legal). The traditional "receiver" backs, ie flanker and slot, are differentiated by where they line up...if you're between the OL and the end, you're a slot, and if you are outside the end, you're a flanker. This subtle difference often influences who covers them and the routes they run, so they are different positions even though they are both receivers that play off the line.

 

Anyway, on to the Bills. Because every team needs two ends and most teams fill at least one end role (and sometimes 2) with a wide receiver, it is assumed the Bills need at least one split end on the roster. And split ends traditionally are a bit bigger, because they have to play on the line and cannot be moving on the snap, so they are more susceptible to press coverage so they need to be able to be physical and make contested catches. If they can make aggressive defenses pay with deep speed too, even better. Adding to this, the Bills lost their two "best" traditional split ends in Diggs and Davis (though I would argue Diggs is more of a flanker/slot).

 

BUT...based on what I said above...You don't NEED a "split end" (aka a big WR), you just need two ends. You can also accomplish this with TWO TIGHT ENDS. You know, like Knox and Kincaid. So long as they are both on the line (tight, wide, or inbetween) and on opposite sides of the formation, all the other skill players can play off the ball. You can roll with 2 TE and two flankers, or two TE, a slot and a flanker, Two TE and two slots, or any other combination...You can also line up with both TE on one side of the LOS and a WR like Shakir or Samuel on the line on the other side, and if the defense shows press man you can use a shift to move one of the TE to the other side and let the WR take a step or two back or even go in motion. The point is, as long as the two TE are on the field together, you can dictate who can and can't be pressed.

 

All that said, there is a difference between a slot and a flanker, too. the Bills could really use a true flanker to stretch defenses vertically. They just don't have to be huge.

 

Anyway, that's my 2 cents...take it or leave it. I'd bet money that if they don't move up they are looking at Worthy/Franklin

 

 

Edited April 24 by Mikey152

[Back2Buff]

I dont trust Joe Brady enough to be able to scheme plays where a traditional X is not needed.  I think we will end up with these smaller slot guys all getting jammed at the line.

Edited April 24 by Back2Buff

[Mikey152]

2 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:

I dont trust Joe Brady enough to be able to scheme plays where a traditional X is not needed.  I think we will end up with these smaller slot guys all getting jammed at the line.

You don't play true press against a receiver off ball. It would be suicide. More like press bail where you line up on the line and bail out at the snap, trying to play the route stem with a more aggressive cushion.

[Back2Buff]

1 minute ago, Mikey152 said:

You don't play true press against a receiver off ball. It would be suicide. More like press bail where you line up on the line and bail out at the snap, trying to play the route stem with a more aggressive cushion.

 

Happens all the time my man.  Teams were doing it to Diggs all last year.

[Bangarang]

I like Kincaid a lot, but he's still just a 2nd year TE. Knox at this point is nothing more than a complimentary piece on offense to me and not someone I'm going to put a lot of hope in being a big factor for us.

 

Right now, our WR room is Shakir, Samuel, Shorter and Hollins. That's pitiful. Even if we trade up for a guy like Odunze, I still think our WR group isn't that strong. 

Edited April 24 by Bangarang

[Buffalo_Stampede]

8 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:

I dont trust Joe Brady enough to be able to scheme plays where a traditional X is not needed.  I think we will end up with these smaller slot guys all getting jammed at the line.

Teams don’t  have the personnel to play that style of defense. If you’re even with Worthy he’s leavin, as they say.

[Logic]

Thanks for this post.

It likely won't get the play it should, because many don't care to get into the nuance of positional alignments, tight ends vs split ends, etc, but...it's good stuff. I appreciate you taking the time to type it up.

For what it's worth, I agree. 

I think the Bills are going to try their hardest to come away with a traditional X anyway, but if they don't manage to get one, I think they'll be fine, for the reasons you stated. 

The scheme versatility and creativity of modern NFL offenses -- not to mention the way NFL rules are currently set up -- make it so that you can have all sorts of non-traditional collections of personnel and can still produce on offense. 

NFL offenses are more likely to be limited by the imagination of their playcaller than by any personnel shortcomings they may have.

[Mikey152]

8 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:

 

Happens all the time my man.  Teams were doing it to Diggs all last year.

Most of Diggs big plays this year were when he was off ball against aggressive coverage.

1 minute ago, Logic said:

Thanks for this post.

It likely won't get the play it should, because many don't care to get into the nuance of positional alignments, tight ends vs split ends, etc, but...it's good stuff. I appreciate you taking the time to type it up.

For what it's worth, I agree. 

I think the Bills are going to try their hardest to come away with a traditional X anyway, but if they don't manage to get one, I think they'll be fine, for the reasons you stated. 

The scheme versatility and creativity of modern NFL offenses -- not to mention the way NFL rules are currently set up -- make it so that you can have all sorts of non-traditional collections of personnel and can still produce on offense. 

NFL offenses are more likely to be limited by the imagination of their playcaller than by any personnel shortcomings they may have.

Thanks.

 

And don't get me wrong...I live in Ohio and I like MHJ just as much as the next guy. He can play on or off ball, and would likely send one of Knox/Shakir/Samuel to the bench instead of just Shakir/Samuel for a guy like Worthy or Franklin. But to me, that is more of a luxury than a need.

 

 

[BADOLBILZ]

 

 

Yep and I'd also add that the Bills don't "need" to win a Super Bowl.

 

 

[warrior9]

25 minutes ago, Mikey152 said:

You don't play true press against a receiver off ball. It would be suicide. More like press bail where you line up on the line and bail out at the snap, trying to play the route stem with a more aggressive cushion.

Did you watch the Bills/ Chiefs game? We get abused at the line every time we play them. 
 

have you watched the Chiefs / Spags play at all? They would probably disagree heavily here. 

[Mikey152]

6 minutes ago, warrior9 said:

Did you watch the Bills/ Chiefs game? We get abused at the line every time we play them. 
 

have you watched the Chiefs / Spags play at all? They would probably disagree heavily here. 

You need to go watch the all-22 of that divisional game. Were they aggressive? sure. Did they play press man against off ball receivers? no. did Diggs line up on the ball alot in that game? Yes...even when he was in the slot. Why? no Gabe Davis and Knox didn't see a lot of snaps

Edited April 24 by Mikey152

[Allen2D̶i̶g̶g̶s̶TBD]

The Bills do need a dominant wide receiver after losing Diggs, but the weapons that we have left allow for some flexibility.

 

We have bigger body receivers in Kincaid, Shorter and Hollins, Speed receivers in Samuel, Isabella, and Hamler, and a budding star slot receiver in Shakir.

 

We need a talented receiver who can beat press coverage and get open downfield. 

 

My hope is that Beane double dips and takes receivers with different skill sets to exploit matchups.

Take one guy at #28 like Adonai Mitchell, Xavier Worthy, or Troy Franklin (I'm assuming Brian Thomas will be gone)

Pick #60 can be used to address another need like DT or Safety

Then, move up into the 3rd for a guy like Javon Baker, Malachi Corley, or Roman Wilson using the 2025 2nd rounder from the Diggs trade

Edited April 24 by Allen2D̶i̶g̶g̶s̶TBD

[Buffalo_Stampede]

3 minutes ago, warrior9 said:

Did you watch the Bills/ Chiefs game? We get abused at the line every time we play them. 
 

have you watched the Chiefs / Spags play at all? They would probably disagree heavily here. 

Hardest players to jam are small quick guys. Easiest are big guys.

 

Its not about size and strength, its about technique and understanding what the defense is trying to do.

 

 

 

[Mikey152]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Hardest players to jam are small quick guys. Easiest are big guys.

 

Its not about size and strength, its about technique and understanding what the defense is trying to do.

 

 

 

Especially if they are off the ball. If you can't get a hand in their chest at the snap, it's gonna be hard to get a good jam on a quick guy once he can move laterally.

[ngbills]

I get the formation discussion but dont get the point that we dont need an X receiver. I may be taking liberties here, but most are referring more to the X as the #1 WR. The Bills do desperately need a #1 WR and that #1 is likely an X. But the NFL game has become much more dynamic than X lines up here, Y there, etc. Guys move around and your #1 will be in the slot, outside, in the backfield. Its all about creating mismatches. The Bills lack that guy (the traditional X) that teams will want to double team. WIthout it the Bills become a lot less dangerous. Nobody will be scared of Kincaid, Knox, Shakir, Samuels. 

[Green Lightning]

Two TE's and lots of slots then?

[Back2Buff]

26 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Hardest players to jam are small quick guys. Easiest are big guys.

 

Its not about size and strength, its about technique and understanding what the defense is trying to do.

 

 

 

 

If a defender misses on a jam, thats on the defender, not the offensive player being too quick.  These rules now days allow the defender to literally be right at the line and to mug the crap out the player for 5 yards.  Try jamming DK vs jamming Chase.  Much tougher to do anything to alter DK than Chase.

[Mikey152]

4 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:

 

If a defender misses on a jam, thats on the defender, not the offensive player being too quick.  These rules now days allow the defender to literally be right at the line and to mug the crap out the player for 5 yards.  Try jamming DK vs jamming Chase.  Much tougher to do anything to alter DK than Chase.

The whole point is, if a receiver isn't on the line, the defense has a hard time jamming them. Especially if they are quick. Most off the ball receivers don't get jammed at the line...a physical CB might play the route stem and take advantage of some liberal illegal contact rules to maintain leverage, but they're not trying to disrupt right from the line like true press man/bump and run on an on-the-ball receiver.

Edited April 24 by Mikey152

[The Jokeman]

6 minutes ago, Green Lightning said:

Two TE's and lots of slots then?

It worked for New England but as much as I love Josh he's no Tom Brady. If he was he would have passed to Diggs not Shakir on 2nd down.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

7 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:

 

If a defender misses on a jam, thats on the defender, not the offensive player being too quick.  These rules now days allow the defender to literally be right at the line and to mug the crap out the player for 5 yards.  Try jamming DK vs jamming Chase.  Much tougher to do anything to alter DK than Chase.

I don’t see it. I watch a lot of football. Rules today do not favor CBs.

 

The league is off zone coverage. Or bail technique.

 

Edited April 24 by Buffalo_Stampede