Building around Josh

[Buffalo03]

1 minute ago, NeverOutNick said:

Glad I could at least put a smile on your face. You’re welcome. And I agree great movie and boy was Marisa Tomei something special. Honestly she’s still gorgeous 

Yeah, she definitely is

[PromoTheRobot]

10 hours ago, strive_for_five_guy said:

We could have won it all

 

 

[The Jokeman]

12 hours ago, strive_for_five_guy said:

We could have won it all

It's Norwood's fault

Edited May 17 by The Jokeman

[Don Otreply]

So, we are doing this again, 

 

not totally exciting to be honest…, 

[MiracleAtRich1393]

13 hours ago, LeGOATski said:

What if AD and Troy Franklin totally suck? Then our WR corps still sucks AND our defense sucks. You just wasted picks.

 

At the end of the day, just trust your draft board and all the work you put into it.

What if Bishop & Carter are JAGS or totally suck?

[folz]

It would be great to get Josh as many high-end targets as possible, but there is a little thing called team building.

 

First of all, safety was at least as important a position to fill as WR. As we have seen with Poyer and Hyde over the last seven years, it is a very important position in McD's defense, as far as quarterbacking the defense and disguising their defense. Also, we aren't a traditional strong and free safety position team. The safeties (much like the LBs) need to be interchangeable. So, not every safety will fit in the system. You need a specific type of player. And before the draft, Damar Hamlin was our #1 backup.

 

Then, as others have said, trying to get three young guys up to speed and/or determine which of them is the best, who should get the most reps, playing time, etc. would be a logistical nightmare. Not to mention the possible frustration of the guys who aren't getting as many reps or playing time. And it would make it harder for them to build chemistry with Josh both on and off the field. Building relationships and rapport with three new guys at the same time, who will each be getting limited reps would be tougher.

 

Then there is the best case scenario of, ok, what if they all become good. Maybe you can trade one early on in their career or something (and hope to get back that 2nd or 3rd round pick for a guy that you haven't really had the reps to showcase most likely), but if you hold on to them all, then you are having to decide on 5th year options and whether to give them a second contract or not all at the same time (and/or lose and replace some or all of them at the same time). And while you have them, how often will all three of them be on the field at the same time? Do you need to change the offense to accomodate? Or if one of the three isn't on the field much, then that is a high draft pick for a backup.

 

Then there is the thought of, what if it takes all of them 2-3 years to acclimate and play well. Are you really holding 3 WR spots on the roster for developing players? Who are you putting on the field in the meantime if they are taking up three roster spots. And being guys with a lot of potential and having been drafted in rounds 1-4, good luck keeping them on the practice squad, you almost have to keep them on the 53. Can the guys you drafted at least play special teams until they are up-to-speed as a WR? Or did they not do that in college, are unwilling/reluctant to do that at the pro level.

 

I feel like I could go on and on and I didn't even mention depth and money allocation. What position are you sacrificing depth at? It appears you were fine sacrificing depth at safety and DT, but do we really want another year of your Tim Settles, Poona Fords, and Damar Hamlins having to play significant time at those positions? We didn't have a lot of cap space to sign a lot of above-average free agents---having to fit in another safety and DT FA contract, for example, might have been tough ( if you want a good enough player). By mid-season, Carter could possibly be playing 30-40% of the snaps at DT and Bishop may be starting at safety. To find that production in free agency would have cost.

 

There is just so much more that goes into the thinking behind team building than just get Josh as many weapons as possible. You have to ask at what cost and/or what are the odds and possible outcomes of each gamble.

 

Now you mentioned Cincinnati. Sure, you could suggest that as an option for Beane...he should grab one WR in the first two rounds every year and churn through them. I'm not sure the long-term effects on the rest of the team with that philosophy to say whether it works or not over the long haul...but the Bills drafting three WRs with their first three picks this year would not be good team building, imo, regardless of the players drafted.

 

I kind of agree with GunnerBill in that the best option would have been drafting and grooming a higher draft pick WR behind Diggs and Davis the last year or two (not 6th and 7th rounders). Granted, before the 2023 draft, maybe they didn't expect the level of Diggs' discontent and/or his slowing down and expected to still have him this season, with Coleman being drafted as the Davis replacement. So, maybe they thought they had another year to replace Diggs initially (so I can give them a bit of a pass there). But, ultimately, you would hope that you are drafting and grooming future starters behind your current starters at as many positions as possible...and that really hasn't been the case for Beane when it comes to WR. But, I'm not as down as some on the current make-up of the WR room (when including the TEs in that thought). I think the guys we got can get it done with Josh at the helm. No one may have Diggs-like numbers, but the sum of the parts may actually be better than how things played out last year. I guess we just have to wait and see.

Edited May 17 by folz

[Just Jack]

I thought this would be another thread on Josh living in The Pit.  

[Orlando Buffalo]

I will have to stop repeating this at some point but this team is built for Josh to move the ball to each receiver in turn. We do not have a #1 like Diggs but we have guys who have roles to fill and should all be good for 50+ catches. Having 2 more receivers does not do us any good unless we can get the right Safety because we won't stop anyone. 

[FireChans]

11 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Not sure three highly touted rookies who you expect to play would have been a great idea. Just in terms of getting them all practice reps with Josh in OTAs and camp there are only so many to go around. Teaching them all the playbook and the scheme and trying to build chemistry with the QB is a real thing. Could that have potentially brought two highly touted guys along and then a 3rd guy who you basically run with the 2s and 3s this camp because you see him as a developmental piece? Sure. But trying to get three rookies up to speed by week 1 ready to start or play significant time I think would have been a stretch. 

 

Just for the sake of the argument look at MLB last year. McDermott started camp with a 4 person rotation - Bernard, Dodson, Klein and Spector. And by the end of the week 1 it was down to Bernard and Dodson because he was worried the reps were being spread too thin and nobody was close to getting up to speed. 

 

Basically it isn't Madden. It is real football. 

We are trying to get 3 guys up to speed in Hamler, Claypool and MVS. Right now.

 

Sure, it would be stretch to get 3 rookies ready for week 1. But what about by week 8? Week 12?

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, FireChans said:

We are trying to get 3 guys up to speed in Hamler, Claypool and MVS. Right now.

 

Sure, it would be stretch to get 3 rookies ready for week 1. But what about by week 8? Week 12?

 

How many of those guys will get any reps at all with the 1s this camp? Unless something incredible happens I'd venture 1 - MVS. And vets are generally (not always but generally) easier to get up to speed than rookies. I am not saying you can't draft 3 receivers. I am saying drafting three in the same class who you expect to make a significant contribution as rookies is pretty optimistic. So I think 3 in the first 3 rounds would probably have been one too many.

 

There were other ways to fix where we stand at receiver that were much more sensible than that.

Edited May 17 by GunnerBill

[Matt_In_NH]

Say no to crack

Crack is whack

and all that

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

How many of those guys will get any reps at all with the 1s this camp? Unless something incredible happens I'd venture 1 - MVS. And vets are generally (not always but generally) easier to get up to speed than rookies. I am not saying you can't draft 3 receivers. I am saying drafting three in the same class who you expect to make a significant contribution as rookies is pretty optimistic. So I think 3 in the first 3 rounds would probably have been one too many.

 

There were other ways to fix where we stand at receiver that were much more sensible than that.

Packers drafted 2 WR's and 2 TE's last offseason.

 

They paired them with the 3 WR's they drafted the year prior.

 

Of those 5 WR's, 4 of them have already had 500+ yard seasons, and all 4 did so during their rookie seasons.

 

I get its not Madden, but it's not impossible to get these guys contributing. And guess what, the perfect time to let the rookies make mistakes is when you're in a take your medicine rebuilding year.

 

I would prefer this strategy to the one this regime is currently undertaking.

[LeGOATski]

5 hours ago, MiracleAtRich1393 said:

What if Bishop & Carter are JAGS or totally suck?

What if Josh Allen quits the NFL and moves to Hollywood????

[MasterStrategist]

12 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The reality is as long as Beane is GM they will not prioritise wide receivers in the draft. They never did when he was Dir. Football Ops or Ass. GM in Carolina when he was learning his trade and they never have here. All things equal he will ALWAYS prioritise defensive front 7. 

To each their own, but I like the philosophy/approach that Beane has taken.  Don't agree with "not prioritizing" though.

 

I wish he would have invested more in OL sooner.  And he has a so-so track record.at front 7, much better at LB and avg/below avg at DL, IMO.

 

This is the buzz topic for most, so not looking to rock the boat in this topic.  But I continue to think a strong DL/OL, with a great QB wins championships...we don't see a lot of track meet SBs, or teams win it that don't have the formula listed above.

 

Agree with you 100% on not drafting 3 WRs in a single draft. If we look back to 2020-current though:

 

2020: Diggs, Gabe

2021: instead of drafting a WR, they liked Manny

2022: Shakir

2023: Kincaid

2024: 2nd technically, but should count as a 1st given we would have taken Coleman or another WR at 28

 

I see your point being more inaccurate, but thats just my point of view on how much you consider "prioritizing".  Since 2020, we've used 3 1sts, a 4th, and a 5th on weapons.  Then a 2nd on Cook, and a 3rd on Moss.

 

So that's 3 out of 5 years, using a 1st round pick at a receiver/tight end.  Then some later picks/mixed with FA signings.

 

They saw Gabe as a suitable #2/3, and now putting faith in Shakir to take a higher role.

 

I'd say that's much better than "not prioritizing".

 

It's not the best group on paper, Beane has self created some cap issues.  But it's a decent group with potential.  Mainly riding on Brady as a OC, and faith in the young receivers taking advantage of their opportunities week-to-week.

 

Kincaid, Samuel, Shakir, Coleman, MVS.  Then Cook, Knox, Hollins, and Davis/Johnson.  It's a good enough group with better playcalling, OR if one the young guys surprises with a bigger season than expected.  

 

If both happen, we will be a top 3 offense.  If 1 happens, we should be in the top 5-8.  If neither happens, we're likely in the 10-15 range.

 

I like Brady alot, so I'm confident that box will at least be checked.

 

 

[DeepPass]

The NFL is made by short term bandaids.  Except at QB !  It's the life in the "new" NFL!

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, MasterStrategist said:

To each their own, but I like the philosophy/approach that Beane has taken.  Don't agree with "not prioritizing" though.

 

I wish he would have invested more in OL sooner.  And he has a so-so track record.at front 7, much better at LB and avg/below avg at DL, IMO.

 

This is the buzz topic for most, so not looking to rock the boat in this topic.  But I continue to think a strong DL/OL, with a great QB wins championships...we don't see a lot of track meet SBs, or teams win it that don't have the formula listed above.

 

Agree with you 100% on not drafting 3 WRs in a single draft. If we look back to 2020-current though:

 

2020: Diggs, Gabe

2021: instead of drafting a WR, they liked Manny

2022: Shakir

2023: Kincaid

2024: 2nd technically, but should count as a 1st given we would have taken Coleman or another WR at 28

 

I see your point being more inaccurate, but thats just my point of view on how much you consider "prioritizing".  Since 2020, we've used 3 1sts, a 4th, and a 5th on weapons.  Then a 2nd on Cook, and a 3rd on Moss.

 

So that's 3 out of 5 years, using a 1st round pick at a receiver/tight end.  Then some later picks/mixed with FA signings.

 

They saw Gabe as a suitable #2/3, and now putting faith in Shakir to take a higher role.

 

I'd say that's much better than "not prioritizing".

 

It's not the best group on paper, Beane has self created some cap issues.  But it's a decent group with potential.  Mainly riding on Brady as a OC, and faith in the young receivers taking advantage of their opportunities week-to-week.

 

Kincaid, Samuel, Shakir, Coleman, MVS.  Then Cook, Knox, Hollins, and Davis/Johnson.  It's a good enough group with better playcalling, OR if one the young guys surprises with a bigger season than expected.  

 

If both happen, we will be a top 3 offense.  If 1 happens, we should be in the top 5-8.  If neither happens, we're likely in the 10-15 range.

 

I like Brady alot, so I'm confident that box will at least be checked.

 

 

Every posted defense of Beane not drafting enough WR’s always has Kincaid (TE) and a combo of Cook (RB) or Moss (RB) or Singletary (RB) to justify it.

[MasterStrategist]

Just now, FireChans said:

Every posted defense of Beane not drafting enough WR’s always has Kincaid (TE) and a combo of Cook (RB) or Moss (RB) or Singletary (RB) to justify it.

You know it's not illegal for Kincaid to catch passes or be our leading target.

 

And if you read my post, and not cherry picked comments, you'd notice I made the case of Beane using 3 of our last 5 first round picks on a combination of receiver/tight end.

 

It's not all about just having a dominant WR room, very good TE play can be just as impactful.  Perhaps less big/splash plays, but provide great consistency for middle of field and help create 1-1s for other receiving options.

[FireChans]

36 minutes ago, MasterStrategist said:

You know it's not illegal for Kincaid to catch passes or be our leading target.

 

And if you read my post, and not cherry picked comments, you'd notice I made the case of Beane using 3 of our last 5 first round picks on a combination of receiver/tight end.

 

It's not all about just having a dominant WR room, very good TE play can be just as impactful.  Perhaps less big/splash plays, but provide great consistency for middle of field and help create 1-1s for other receiving options.

See, you can argue that Beane has a different team-building philosophy. That he wants to focus more on TE’s and RB’s that are pass catching threats.

 

What you CAN’T argue is that he has prioritized the WR position. The Bills are one of the lower teams in the league when it comes to WR investment. This is a fact. It is indisputable. Kincaid doesn’t “kinda count.” He’s a TE. Coleman isn’t “basically a first round pick.” He’s a second round pick.

[MasterStrategist]

47 minutes ago, FireChans said:

See, you can argue that Beane has a different team-building philosophy. That he wants to focus more on TE’s and RB’s that are pass catching threats.

 

What you CAN’T argue is that he has prioritized the WR position. The Bills are one of the lower teams in the league when it comes to WR investment. This is a fact. It is indisputable. Kincaid doesn’t “kinda count.” He’s a TE. Coleman isn’t “basically a first round pick.” He’s a second round pick.

In my book, a non-RB receiving threat is just as valuable to an offense.  TE or WR.  I don't care if Kincaid lines up outside, on the line beside the T, or in the slot.  You're putting a WR in the exact same position (minus lining up in a traditional TE position).  Kincaid is not a traditional TE, I think we all recognize that, and his alignment most often reflects a slot WR in our formations.

 

And even if you don't want to include Kincaid, fine.  But let me rephrase we have spent 2 out of our last 5 "top 33 picks" on a WR.  Diggs and Coleman.  40%.

 

If you want to call that "not priortizing", please name all the other teams that have used 40% or more of their respective top 33 selections in their respective last 5 drafts.  Plus drafted a "TE" in that criteria as well.  I can spend the time looking it up, but I'm going out on a limb and say we are top 10 in that regard.

 

2nd way to look at this is cap hit $s by year:

 

2020-2024: we've been 4th, 9th, and 7th highest.  Never below 18th.  And cumulatively spent more than Cincy and KC (just to compare against 2 teams)

 

I'd like to see your "facts" now, that explains why we are according to you..."one of the lower teams in the league when it comes to WR investment".  Please do tell.

 

It seems you're being more emotional, than rationale at first glance.  But I'll gladly apologize if you have actual "facts" that are indisputable, as you insist above.

 

[FireChans]

7 hours ago, MasterStrategist said:

In my book, a non-RB receiving threat is just as valuable to an offense.  TE or WR.  I don't care if Kincaid lines up outside, on the line beside the T, or in the slot.  You're putting a WR in the exact same position (minus lining up in a traditional TE position).  Kincaid is not a traditional TE, I think we all recognize that, and his alignment most often reflects a slot WR in our formations.

 

And even if you don't want to include Kincaid, fine.  But let me rephrase we have spent 2 out of our last 5 "top 33 picks" on a WR.  Diggs and Coleman.  40%.

 

If you want to call that "not priortizing", please name all the other teams that have used 40% or more of their respective top 33 selections in their respective last 5 drafts.  Plus drafted a "TE" in that criteria as well.  I can spend the time looking it up, but I'm going out on a limb and say we are top 10 in that regard.

 

2nd way to look at this is cap hit $s by year:

 

2020-2024: we've been 4th, 9th, and 7th highest.  Never below 18th.  And cumulatively spent more than Cincy and KC (just to compare against 2 teams)

 

I'd like to see your "facts" now, that explains why we are according to you..."one of the lower teams in the league when it comes to WR investment".  Please do tell.

 

It seems you're being more emotional, than rationale at first glance.  But I'll gladly apologize if you have actual "facts" that are indisputable, as you insist above.

 

It doesn’t matter to you. Maybe it doesn’t matter to Beane. But it doesn’t make him a WR lol.

 

We all clowned the Chiefs WR group last year, because they were awful. They still had Kelce. Their WR’s still did suck. 
 

I will need to find the stat, but I believe we have spent the second lowest draft capital total on WR to the Bucs, but of course now I can’t find it lol.