THE ROCKPILE REVIEW - Receivers are a Dime a Dozen

[SoCal Deek]

4 hours ago, Figster said:

Beane already addressed weapons around Allen with Kincaid, Cook and now Coleman. The strategy is to run the football more and throw to big, strong targets that can also run block well.

 

Complimentary football  baby,

 

makes McD a happy clapper ;  )

As I said, we’re all gonna see if it works. 

[Einstein's Dog]

12 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I find this discussion interesting, but only to a point. Unless Beane has another card up his sleeve it appears we’re all about to find out if this strategy works. The Bills jettisoned their top two WRs in favor of cheaper, less experienced alternatives. Does having a franchise quarterback make up for the loss? Again, we’re going to know in just a few months. Somebody please remember to resurrect this thread in October. 

I'm in the minority that expect Beane to do a move in early June.

 

But to the OP, I believe almost all teams want multiple good WRs.  Unlike RBs where some teams aren't going to pay the top level RBs (ie the Bills).  With the rise of Josh the FO adopted the strategy of going cheap on RB and more investment in the WR room.  Generally teams with good QBs will find it hard to pay 2 really good WRs, so they need at least one through the draft.  Consistent with this strategy is the Bills trading for a top tier WR and developing K Coleman.

 

I don't know what people are thinking this new strategy is exactly, in regards to the Bills.  We're going to go cheap on WRs along with going cheap on RBs?  That's not a strategy, that's just being miserly, that's rebuild stuff.  Under this new strategy where does the money go (and many teams have the same QB pay)?

[Shaw66]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I agree they do everything with a purpose but their purpose is not always about the immediate short term. Unless you think in 2018 Beane put together the worst collection of skill position players and offensive linemen the Bills have had this century to support his rookie QB because he thought that was a good idea? He didn't. He thought taking on all the dead cap of the guys they had moved on from - Sammy, Darby, Dareus, Glenn, Tyrod etc - in one hit was a good idea. The offensive talent reflected the reality that he had less to spend as a result. 

 

That is what is happening here IMO. Beane's purpose is to do a mini-reset of the roster in 2024 to transition from the first Allen era team to Allen era 2.0. He has built the best WR room he thinks he can in that context. It doesn't mean they aren't trying to win in 2024 but their #1 objective in their roster decisions this spring was to begin that reset. 

I hear you, and you may be right.   I mean, it's definitely a reset, I agree with that, but not at all of the type or magnitude of 2018.  Beane inherited a team that didn't look at all like he wanted it to look, and he had only two choices - gradual or drastic change.  

 

The change in the receiver room is different, I think.  Unless Davis had a monster 2023, he was always going to be gone, because the Bills wouldn't pay him what he could get in the market.  Diggs may have been a surprise to McBeane as the 2023 season unfolded.  Who knows all that went on, but increasingly I find myself wondering whether, once Brady took over, he began installing the concept they seem to be going with now - call it receiver by committee and Diggs just didn't cooperate with it.   Diggs would be perfect in that kind of scheme - he could be better than Beasley at being Beasley, he could go deep, he was good at crossers.   He had all the tools.  But I wonder whether he didn't cooperate because he understood it as a demotion - he would no longer be the true number one guy, and I think that was important to him.  

 

But I think that what you're saying is that wherever the Bills are going with the receiver room - receiver by committee of classic stud #1 guy with a supporting cast, 2024 is a transitional year, and the receiver room won't be complete for another year or two.  

 

In reality, however, I think receiver by committee is a system where the receiver room ALWAYS is in transition.  Certainly that's what has happened in KC since they unloaded their top dog, and what's going on in San Francisco is at least curiously suggestive that the transition has begun there.  Receiver by committee is essentially a system that requires the GM to have an interesting collection of talented guys at receiver every year, and it's always in flux.  In that sense, I'd say 2024 is not a reset - it's the first iteration of what the future is going to look like.  MVS is a receiver-by-committee receiver.  Samuel is too.  Shakir is.  The 2024 receiver room may be the first committee - not the first step in a reset, not a transition, just the first committee.  In 2025, Beane will keep some of them, replace some others, and season after season there will be a new committee.  

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

But I think that what you're saying is that wherever the Bills are going with the receiver room - receiver by committee of classic stud #1 guy with a supporting cast, 2024 is a transitional year, and the receiver room won't be complete for another year or two.  

 

In reality, however, I think receiver by committee is a system where the receiver room ALWAYS is in transition.  Certainly that's what has happened in KC since they unloaded their top dog, and what's going on in San Francisco is at least curiously suggestive that the transition has begun there.  Receiver by committee is essentially a system that requires the GM to have an interesting collection of talented guys at receiver every year, and it's always in flux.  In that sense, I'd say 2024 is not a reset - it's the first iteration of what the future is going to look like.  MVS is a receiver-by-committee receiver.  Samuel is too.  Shakir is.  The 2024 receiver room may be the first committee - not the first step in a reset, not a transition, just the first committee.  In 2025, Beane will keep some of them, replace some others, and season after season there will be a new committee.  

 

Yes, I am saying that. I don't think you should take anything at all from how they build the room in 2024 other than they were doing the best they felt they could given their other pressures. In terms of next year's receiver room IMO one of two things happens..... 1) Keon is great as a rookie and is the established #1 going into 2025; 2) He doesn't and they are aggressive next year to find a #1 either by trade or by going receiver early again in the draft. 

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

I'm in the minority that expect Beane to do a move in early June.

 

But to the OP, I believe almost all teams want multiple good WRs.  Unlike RBs where some teams aren't going to pay the top level RBs (ie the Bills).  With the rise of Josh the FO adopted the strategy of going cheap on RB and more investment in the WR room.  Generally teams with good QBs will find it hard to pay 2 really good WRs, so they need at least one through the draft.  Consistent with this strategy is the Bills trading for a top tier WR and developing K Coleman.

 

I don't know what people are thinking this new strategy is exactly, in regards to the Bills.  We're going to go cheap on WRs along with going cheap on RBs?  That's not a strategy, that's just being miserly, that's rebuild stuff.  Under this new strategy where does the money go (and many teams have the same QB pay)?

No, I don't think it's going cheap.  I think it's making decisions about where your dollars are best spent.   I think the future we're heading into is one where teams will be reluctant to spend big dollars on star receivers, because it isn't money well spent.  Receivers don't carry your team, any more than running backs do.  What carries your team is a quarterback, an offensive line, and a good defense.   You can't mix and match offensive linemen every year, drafting one and signing a free agent.   The line needs continuity, and you can't have continuity if you're shuffling and reshuffling the line.   But you can shuffle and reshuffle running backs.  And I believe we're into an era where you also can shuffle and reshuffle receivers.   That's why OBJ and Hopkins seem always to be on the market.   Having a stud receiver isn't the key to winning, just like having a stud running back isn't the key.  

[Shaw66]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yes, I am saying that. I don't think you should take anything at all from how they build the room in 2024 other than they were doing the best they felt they could given their other pressures. In terms of next year's receiver room IMO one of two things happens..... 1) Keon is great as a rookie and is the established #1 going into 2025; 2) He doesn't and they are aggressive next year to find a #1 either by trade or by going receiver early again in the draft. 

Yeah, I get it.   I don't think it's clear, at all, that if your #2 happens the Bills will go after a true #1.  I don't think we really know that the Bills believe any longer that they need a true #1.  And I think we'll find out, because I don't think Keon will emerge as a true #1.   Next year at this time, we'll know if you're correct, and you may very well be.  

 

In 2024 the Bills will have a receiver who statistically is number one.  They'll have a guy with 1300 yards and that guy will have the most targets.  The announcers will say he emerged at the #1.   But I don't think that'll make him a #1 receiver.  For me, the question is whether the guy created those 1300 yards (that's what a true #1 does) or whether he was the guy in the system who got the most targets.  Now, he has to be good to get the most targets, but that's not enough to be a true #1.  I think a guy like St. Brown isn't a true #1 - he's great, but he needs the right system to create the opportunities he needs to be great.  

[DrDawkinstein]

17 hours ago, Craig Oi said:

https://sports.yahoo.com/receiver-market-way-running-back-161213948.html....Just for those who scoffed at the main idea

 

 

 

[GunnerBill]

20 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Yeah, I get it.   I don't think it's clear, at all, that if your #2 happens the Bills will go after a true #1.  I don't think we really know that the Bills believe any longer that they need a true #1.  And I think we'll find out, because I don't think Keon will emerge as a true #1.   Next year at this time, we'll know if you're correct, and you may very well be.  

 

In 2024 the Bills will have a receiver who statistically is number one.  They'll have a guy with 1300 yards and that guy will have the most targets.  The announcers will say he emerged at the #1.   But I don't think that'll make him a #1 receiver.  For me, the question is whether the guy created those 1300 yards (that's what a true #1 does) or whether he was the guy in the system who got the most targets.  Now, he has to be good to get the most targets, but that's not enough to be a true #1.  I think a guy like St. Brown isn't a true #1 - he's great, but he needs the right system to create the opportunities he needs to be great.  

 

I agree with you on this. But I do think if they feel they don't have a #1 by this time next year they will try again to acquire one. 

[Einstein's Dog]

22 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

No, I don't think it's going cheap.  I think it's making decisions about where your dollars are best spent.   I think the future we're heading into is one where teams will be reluctant to spend big dollars on star receivers, because it isn't money well spent.  Receivers don't carry your team, any more than running backs do.  What carries your team is a quarterback, an offensive line, and a good defense.   You can't mix and match offensive linemen every year, drafting one and signing a free agent.   The line needs continuity, and you can't have continuity if you're shuffling and reshuffling the line.   But you can shuffle and reshuffle running backs.  And I believe we're into an era where you also can shuffle and reshuffle receivers.   That's why OBJ and Hopkins seem always to be on the market.   Having a stud receiver isn't the key to winning, just like having a stud running back isn't the key.  

So you want more resources into the Defense?  I hope that is not the direction.  I was loving the last few years as they tried moving resources over to the offense - at least in draft capital.

 

For me, I like what I think is the current FO strategy, go low on RBs (price-wise) and invest in pass-catchers.  Consistent with that strategy would be doing a big trade for an expensive WR.  Loved hearing that there are rumors J Jeff could be had.  Now that would be a seismic splash out of Beane.

 

A good reshuffled WR is exactly what is needed IMO.  A good WR is the linchpin move of the off-season.

[Shaw66]

49 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

 

For me, I like what I think is the current FO strategy, go low on RBs (price-wise) and invest in pass-catchers.  Consistent with that strategy would be doing a big trade for an expensive WR.  Loved hearing that there are rumors J Jeff could be had.  Now that would be a seismic splash out of Beane.

 

 

Why do you think the current strategy is to invest in pass receivers?   They didn't use any assets to trade up for a great rookie receiver.   They didn't sign an expensive free agent - Samuel, Hollins, Claypool, MVS all were got on the cheap.  They unloaded Diggs and they didn't want to pay Davis.  None of that looks like a team that's investing in pass receivers.  

[FireChans]

17 hours ago, FireChans said:

The reason why this premise is so silly is because there's an apparent lack of understanding of WHY the running back market is the way it is:

 

#1 - Less elite athletes are running backs now than ever before because its the crappiest skill position to play (this is not happening to WR's, its the opposite)

#2 - Because less elite athletes are running backs, the delta between a solid RB and a great RB has never been smaller (this is not happening to WR's, its the opposite)

#3 - The shelf life for an RB has never been lower, which makes them poor DRAFT investments (this is not happening to WR's, its the opposite)

 

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

 

 

 

[ngbills]

Nico Collins says hi... three-year, $72.75 deal.

[Craig Oi]

8 minutes ago, ngbills said:

Nico Collins says hi... three-year, $72.75 deal.

Rookie QB contract...