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

[Mikey152]

9 minutes ago, ngbills said:

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. 

I think that IS the point, though.

 

The Bills could really use some legitimate weapons...that isn't really up for debate. What IS up for debate is the skill set necessary for said weapons. Thomas and Mitchell over Worthy and Franklin, for example. All because the later two are too skinny.

[Shaw66]

6 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.

Much tougher jamming a guy on the move.  Dolphins started it last season, and others were using it by the end of the season.  Just put the guy they want to jam off the line and let him take off laterally before the snap.  All of a sudden, the jam gets really difficult, and if you miss, you man is running free in the defensive backfield. 

 

[GoBills808]

Yes they do

 

Someone not yet on the roster is going to get a significant amount of targets the next few seasons

 

It has to be a guy w the physical traits to warrant them

[Shaw66]

Mikey, I like your point, and I think there is another reason that makes a particular physical type less important than it used to be, and that is scheme.  The game has evolved a lot over the last 70 years, and one of the important ways it has evolved is that body type has become less important.  In the old days, a split end looked like this and a flanker looked like that.  Gary Collins and Paul Warfield, for example.  A tight end looked like Ernie Warlick.  A tight end like Pete Retzlaff was a real oddity, and the Eagles played him even though he didn't have a body to block like a tight end.  

 

The problem with having particular body types for particular positions was that the body type dictated the kinds of plays you could run with the guy.  So, for example, the defense always knew where the deep threat on the field was - just find the flanker.   You didn't need to worry about the split end going deep, because his body type made him a solid, physical athlete, but not a speedster.  

 

So, the game evolved, and the sizes of the players all converged.   Now there are a lot guys playing between, say 205 and 240.  Linebackers, corners, receivers, running backs.  Even some edge players.   Why?  Because they can do more things, and therefore they and their offense is less predictable.   Ideally, every player runs 4.3, but so long as you have several under 4.5, that's good enough to have multiple players who can challenge the defense.   So long as you have enough guys in the 220 pound range, you can play as physically as is necessary, at least in the regular season. 

 

The more you rely on a stud player, the more predictable your offense is.   When you offense is predictable, it's easier to scheme against.  By having a lot of guys who are multiple, you are less predictable, and less predictable makes you tougher to stop. 

 

I think Lebron and Davis make the Lakers predictable, and that's why they've had so much trouble building a winner around them.    

[JMM]

Nice writeup, but I disagree. In the NFL it's still the case you need a wr that can take the top off of a D, no matter the type of D. They need a true X.

[Dr. Who]

Well done, OP, but I am still in the camp of those who want a big X (split end.) I also want a flanker, only I think McConkey is that player (he's not a slot, no matter how many times folks say it.)

Edited April 24 by Dr. Who

[Mikey152]

14 minutes ago, JMM said:

Nice writeup, but I disagree. In the NFL it's still the case you need a wr that can take the top off of a D, no matter the type of D. They need a true X.

You don’t think Tyreek takes the top off a defense? Because he can’t be playing X and be moving at the snap.

 

nobody is saying they can’t use an upgrade at receiver…just that the type of receiver they need shouldn’t be based on shakir/samuel or who left. When you include the TE, their possibilities open up quite a bit.

Edited April 24 by Mikey152

[BADOLBILZ]

32 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Yes they do

 

Someone not yet on the roster is going to get a significant amount of targets the next few seasons

 

It has to be a guy w the physical traits to warrant them

 

 

Yeah what @Mikey152 is missing is the critical importance of big plays.

 

Defense now is all about preventing them.........and the offense desperately need them because it's hard to execute 10-18 play drives in an era of such turnover and so little practice without unforced errors........let alone the forced one's.    

 

It's why scoring fell off around the league last season.

 

A lot of teams who thought they had enough good weapons going into last season found out they did not.

 

Those outside positions..........particularly the X being on the LOS and thus allowing you to put another receiver in motion to free them up.........are critically important because it's easier to get chunks out there if your QB can get the ball deep.

 

And Allen is a unicorn on a lot of deep throws.   He isn't a great bucket-ball tosser but he can reach parts of the field with ropes that defense's just aren't going to be able to consistently cover without leaving something wide open underneath or in the middle.   Not leaning into that strength would be organizational malpractice.

 

People think that the Bills were killing it offensively under Brady but the truth was that it was a struggle.   They were having to run Allen almost 10x per game down the stretch to make their small-ball passing game work.   

    

[Fan in Chicago]

12 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

And Allen is a unicorn on a lot of deep throws.   He isn't a great bucket-ball tosser but he can reach parts of the field with ropes that defense's just aren't going to be able to consistently cover without leaving something wide open underneath or in the middle.   Not leaning into that strength would be organizational malpractice.

    

Yessss. Thats my contention too -that more than "#1 WR" or "#2 WR", i rather think of our receivers are (in) capable of challenging the opposing D in every part of the field cos our QB can reach there without rainbowing passes. 

At this moment, we dont have that kind of field coverage from the WR room. The skillset leaves large areas of uncovered green. Hope that changes in the next 51 hours. 

Edited April 24 by Fan in Chicago

[SirAndrew]

2 hours 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.

This sums up my feelings, and although most of this board agrees on the need for a receiver, most people are higher on Brady than myself. Brady hasn’t shown the ability to turn us into those Pats teams with dominant tight end play and slot receivers. I think Allen and Brady both need a traditional number one. We’re not dealing with an offensive coach like Shanahan who can scheme new ways to win. Brady showed absolutely zero ability to involve Knox and Kincaid as a cohesive entity. Instead he threw everything back on the shoulders of Josh Allen. Two play makers at tight end should have allowed Josh easier throws, less need to run, and less difficult passes. We didn’t see that at all. I think I’m one of the few who isn’t on board with Brady at all. 

[HomeskillitMoorman]

2 hours ago, Bangarang said:

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. 

 

Yeah, we need 2 strong additions. Especially when we know McD's defense is going to give up around 30-40+ points to the Chiefs in the playoffs as it always does, we need a strong WR group to be a real competitor. 

[BADOLBILZ]

59 minutes ago, Fan in Chicago said:

Yessss. Thats my contention too -that more than "#1 WR" or "#2 WR", i rather think of our receivers are (in) capable of challenging the opposing D in every part of the field cos our QB can reach there without rainbowing passes. 

At this moment, we dont have that kind of field coverage from the WR room. The skillset leaves large areas of uncovered green. Hope that changes in the next 51 hours. 

 

 

There is also this phenomena where the further fans get from the regular season the more they start to connect dots that they had known that the universe will not allow to meet just months earlier.    "We don't need an X receiver" was once "sure, Trent Edwards probably CAN run a no huddle offense if you give him Lee Evans and TO".   The deeper we get into the offseason the more people forget games aren't won on paper, they are won on TV......where it's much move violent.    Mini-camps with their no-contact don't help quell the delusion.   

 

 

Edited April 24 by BADOLBILZ

[Green Lightning]

2 hours ago, The Jokeman said:

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.

I don't think they were talking at the time.

 

[Mikey152]

13 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Yeah what @Mikey152 is missing is the critical importance of big plays.

 

Defense now is all about preventing them.........and the offense desperately need them because it's hard to execute 10-18 play drives in an era of such turnover and so little practice without unforced errors........let alone the forced one's.    

 

It's why scoring fell off around the league last season.

 

A lot of teams who thought they had enough good weapons going into last season found out they did not.

 

Those outside positions..........particularly the X being on the LOS and thus allowing you to put another receiver in motion to free them up.........are critically important because it's easier to get chunks out there if your QB can get the ball deep.

 

And Allen is a unicorn on a lot of deep throws.   He isn't a great bucket-ball tosser but he can reach parts of the field with ropes that defense's just aren't going to be able to consistently cover without leaving something wide open underneath or in the middle.   Not leaning into that strength would be organizational malpractice.

 

People think that the Bills were killing it offensively under Brady but the truth was that it was a struggle.   They were having to run Allen almost 10x per game down the stretch to make their small-ball passing game work.   

    

clearly you didn’t read the post…probably just the title.

 

Nowhere did I say the Bills should play small ball or not challenge defenses vertically. I also didn’t say they shouldnt draft a deep threat…in fact, I am sure they will. What I DID say was this idea of procuring a Thomas or Mitchell or even Coleman type of receiver over a Worthy or Franklin is a bit of a mistake.

 

big plays, yes. Big receiver, no.

[Back2Buff]

14 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Much tougher jamming a guy on the move.  Dolphins started it last season, and others were using it by the end of the season.  Just put the guy they want to jam off the line and let him take off laterally before the snap.  All of a sudden, the jam gets really difficult, and if you miss, you man is running free in the defensive backfield. 

 

 

I completely agree with you there, however, going in motion and creating separation is not as easy as it sounds.  You need to have elite ability to change direction at the same speed which your running, the reason why Hill is so good.  The WR is running horizontal across the line, if they can't change direction on a dime, the CB will have zero issue staying with the WR.  

[Sweats]

For what it's worth, here's my take.....

 

I don't know x's and o's and i don't know x and y and z WR's......i know none of that, however, i do know that the game philosophy these days is to control the middle. Yes, you want to control the trenches, but controlling the middle has become a huge factor in today's game plans. And contrary to popular belief, we have players that can control the middle, like Knox, Kincaid, Cook, etc.

 

We do need a WR who can stretch the field and help to open the middle up, however, this narrative that we can't win without one is nonsense.

 

I have spoken.

[ProcessTruster]

Plus, defenses now play 2 deep zone shell against Josh.   I don't care if a guy can run a 4 flat 40, you ain't getting behind that.  

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, Mikey152 said:

clearly you didn’t read the post…probably just the title.

 

Nowhere did I say the Bills should play small ball or not challenge defenses vertically. I also didn’t say they shouldnt draft a deep threat…in fact, I am sure they will. What I DID say was this idea of procuring a Thomas or Mitchell or even Coleman type of receiver over a Worthy or Franklin is a bit of a mistake.

 

big plays, yes. Big receiver, no.

 

 

Oh, I read it all.    I clearly addressed your point about the import of WHERE players line up on the LOS.   In real application,  it matters.   What you are talking about is compromising with regard to matchup advantages.    

 

That's a very "on paper" view of the game.  

 

And on paper Stef Diggs should have been putting up big numbers in the postseason in Buffalo.   Unfortunately,  on the field, his lack of physicality diminished his impact when the officials inevitably tucked away their flags.   There are clear advantages to having both size and speed on the perimeter.   Especially with the type of QB the Bills have.   Whether you call that a "need" or not is just semantics.   It's just unintelligent to not aspire to it. 

[BuffaloMatt]

19 hours ago, Allen2D̶i̶g̶g̶s̶TBD said:

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

Love the Avatar!

[Mikey152]

3 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Oh, I read it all.    I clearly addressed your point about the import of WHERE players line up on the LOS.   In real application,  it matters.   What you are talking about is compromising with regard to matchup advantages.    

 

That's a very "on paper" view of the game.  

 

And on paper Stef Diggs should have been putting up big numbers in the postseason in Buffalo.   Unfortunately,  on the field, his lack of physicality diminished his impact when the officials inevitably tucked away their flags.   There are clear advantages to having both size and speed on the perimeter.   Especially with the type of QB the Bills have.   Whether you call that a "need" or not is just semantics.   It's just unintelligent to not aspire to it. 

A few points...

 

I'm not really seeing where you addressed my point about "where" players are lined up...are you talking about having an X on the LOS so another receiver can go in motion? If so, you're literally missing the entire point of my post. With two TE on the field a significant amount of the time, there is less need to line up a receiver at X when you can just have a TE do it.

 

Further, I think you are missing the whole point. Of course, all things being equal I would take a big fast WR with good hands and ability to separate...but those guys are almost always draft in the top 10. If they slide past that, there is usually something wrong with them. I'd take a Calvin Johnson, sure...but I don't want another Gabe Davis. In the late first round, you're going to be choosing between big fast guys with holes in their game, slot guys, and burners that lack size. Everyone I've seen on this board thinks our WR are too small and we need the big bodied X receiver like Mitchell or Leggette (or mortgage the future for Odunze) to go with Shakir and Samuel, and pretty much ignore and/or want to double dip on guys like Worthy, Franklin, Wilson, etc...all of whom were more productive in college AND better deep threats/YAC players.

 

Maybe you should go watch the Lions play offense. And while you're at it, tell me all about their huge X receiver...I'll wait.

Edited April 25 by Mikey152