Gronkowski, Kelce, Graham, Ward - Why do fans want want a Randy Moss type?

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

3 minutes ago, mrags said:

So if you had a chance to get someone better in the draft you wouldn’t play them because the plan is to get Shakir more catches. Got it. Lol

 

wait. We aren’t playing Coleman this year? 
 

Got it. Lol

[mrags]

Just now, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

wait. We aren’t playing Coleman this year? 
 

Got it. Lol

And if he’s as good as an early draft pick as Elam was? What’s your plan then? 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

4 minutes ago, mrags said:

That’s what they believe.

that’s not what I’ve been saying. 
 

I’ve been firm in two things.

 

bills have invested more in receivers (WRand TE) these last two years than some folks believe. 
 

winning a Super Bowl can be done with or without elite WR’s.
 

 

4 minutes ago, mrags said:

And if he’s as good as an early draft pick as Elam was? What’s your plan then? 

Luckily he is not the only receiver on our team. 

[Einstein's Dog]

26 minutes ago, mrags said:

If you really think you’re better off having a bunch of Joes at WR then a top 10 guy then I don’t know what to tell you. There’s plenty of replies I could have made instead of what I did. But at the end of the day none of it makes a difference. In the end plenty of people were angry that Diggs dropped that pass last year which could have won us the game. Instead we want to replace him with a bunch of joes that aren’t even as good. And I’m perfectly fine getting rid of Diggs. But the fact is they are trying to replace hundreds of targets from last year with a has been head case, a guy that drops more balls than Davis, and a completely unknown rookie. Adding more young talent is not and wouldn’t have been a bad thing. 

I'm with you, I'd much rather be looking at what Franklin could be than giving chances to the retreads of Claypool or MVS (and lets face it Hollins was never supposed to be a starting outside WR).

 

For me, if they bring in a top tier WR via trade it all makes sense.  Then you don't take two in that instance because it would conflict with the path/increased role for Shakir.  The backup for K Coleman would be the versatile C Samuel - while not the same type of player you can adjust the offense until he develops.

 

If they don't add a top tier WR, I am baffled and disappointed at the new direction.  

[mrags]

3 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

that’s not what I’ve been saying. 
 

I’ve been firm in two things.

 

bills have invested more in receivers (WRand TE) these last two years than some folks believe. 
 

winning a Super Bowl can be done with or without elite WR’s.
 

 

Luckily he is not the only receiver on our team. 

The Bills have invested so much in receivers in the last 2 years out of necessity. They’ve got big goose eggs for Harty and Sherfield. Gabe Davis never materialized how they hoped. Diggs became a cancer and they didn’t help that situation at all. Then they had to replace out of necessity again after all those goose eggs left. They replaced them with a guy that drops more balls than Davis, a guy that has never proven to be anything special, another guy that is a bigger cancer and headcase than Diggs. And a completely unknown rookie. Yeah, I’d say they have this WR all locked. Got it. 
 

he’s not, but he’s not a guarantee he won’t be a complete bust, and again, let’s look at all the candidates we have to replace what we’ve lost. 
 

smh 

3 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

I'm with you, I'd much rather be looking at what Franklin could be than giving chances to the retreads of Claypool or MVS (and lets face it Hollins was never supposed to be a starting outside WR).

 

For me, if they bring in a top tier WR via trade it all makes sense.  Then you don't take two in that instance because it would conflict with the path/increased role for Shakir.  The backup for K Coleman would be the versatile C Samuel - while not the same type of player you can adjust the offense until he develops.

 

If they don't add a top tier WR, I am baffled and disappointed at the new direction.  

I get the hope that everything works out. If it does it’s great. But more often than not it doesn’t work out. We can’t expect all of these questions at the position will be the answers. At least not moving forward. Hell, MVS and Claypool are on 1 year deals. Even IF Coleman is a stud, we’ll still be right back where we’re, next year, looking to replace a real 2nd target. 

[FireChans]

36 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

I think it had many, many factors. That’s quite obvious as we know. A couple of those factors will not repeat themselves in our lifetimes. A QB taking the league by surprise and telling the league “here I am” only happens once. A global pandemic, once in a lifetime. 
 

They didn’t have quite the same level of success in 2021 with those receivers still on the roster. 

 

 

They didn’t have those same receivers in 21. Beasley got old. Brown had one foot out of the league and was cut.

 

See, I don’t don’t believe you. I can’t believe that you think having prime Diggs, Davis, Beasley and half a season of prime John Brown wasn’t a big reason why Josh was so incredible in 2020.

 

Just like why Mahomes was incredible when he had Hill, Kelce, Watkins etc etc. 

 

And yes, Mahomes counting stats particularly dropped when they traded Hill. But you know what they did? They signed JuJu. They traded for Toney. They drafted Moore, they drafted Rice, they drafted Worthy, they signed Hollywood Brown. They signed MVS when he was still young.

 

This is so obvious. The team that won the SB twice with a much weaker receiving group after trading Hill have tried DESPERATELY to get their group to back that level. They haven’t had the success they were probably hoping for, but it wasn’t for lack of trying. And of course, retaining Kelce helps A LOT.

 

The Bills saw that 2020 group get worse and worse and worse and did very little, with hilariously failed experiments like bringing back the corpses of retired Brown and Beasley, bringing in JAGs like Harty and Sherfield and culminating with the last of that 2020 group leaving, where our two early FA WR targets were Samuel and Hollins lol.
 

This is all obvious. It was obvious then, which I was I have consistently hammered this point for the last 3 years. It’s even more obvious now. 

[HappyDays]

16 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

winning a Super Bowl can be done with or without elite WR’s.

 

You can't even get to the Super Bowl these days without an elite pass catcher. We keep going round and round on this but the data is the data. Look at the recent history of Super Bowl participants going back at least five seasons. They all had a top tier pass catcher, and their #2 pass catcher was pretty damn good too at the very least. That is the formula.

 

Like I've said elsewhere it is possible the Bills end up having that formula this year. Kincaid could take a big step and become an elite pass catcher. Coleman could end up hitting his potential sooner than expected. Maybe Shakir proves me wrong and can take on a much larger target share without a big drop off in his efficiency. Or the giant dark horse would be Claypool suddenly turning his career around and living up to his elite physical potential. We need two of those outcomes to happen. So yes I recognize that the Super Bowl formula remains a possibility for this group of pass catchers, but I also recognize that that formula is in fact pretty much mandatory these days.

 

If you want to say that you're optimistic the current group of pass catchers will produce an elite player and a very good #2, cool I can respect that. It's part of being a fan. If you want to say having top tier pass catching talent is optional, I'm sorry but that statement is flat out wrong.

 

Edited June 2 by HappyDays

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

You can't even get to the Super Bowl these days without an elite pass catcher. We keep going round and round on this but the data is the data. Look at the recent history of Super Bowl participants going back at least five seasons. They all had a top tier pass catcher, and their #2 pass catcher was pretty damn good too at the very least. That is the formula.

 

Like I've said elsewhere it is possible the Bills end up having that formula this year. Kincaid could take a big step and become an elite pass catcher. Coleman could end up hitting his potential sooner than expected. Maybe Shakir proves me wrong and can take on a much larger target share without a big drop off in his efficiency. Or the giant dark horse would be Claypool suddenly turning his career around and living up to his elite physical potential. We need two of those outcomes to happen. So yes I recognize that the Super Bowl formula remains a possibility for this group of pass catchers, but I also recognize that that formula is in fact pretty much mandatory these days.

 

If you want to say that you're optimistic the current group of pass catchers will produce an elite player and a very good #2, cool I can respect that. It's part of being a fan. If you want to say having top tier pass catching talent is optional, I'm sorry but that statement is flat out wrong.

 

They last 4 SB’s have featured Kelce, Hill, Evans, Godwin, AJ Brown, Devonta Smith, Jamar Chase, Tee Higgins, Cooper Kupp, OBJ, Deebo Samuel, Brandon Aiyuk. 
 

Bills fans - “we just need 3 Curtis Samuel’s!”

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

kincaid and shakir all had great catch rates. The plan is to give them larger roles in the offense. 

 

 

That plan to give a larger role didn't work for Robert Foster in 2019, did it?    It was supposed to be Foster and Brown on the outsides and Beasley as the slot.    Foster fell flat on his face and they ended up needing to trade for Diggs the next offseason.

 

Then it didn't work with Gabriel Davis or Dawson Knox in 2022.   Both failed to live up to promise and that lead to the Bills needing to use their first selection on Kincaid in 2023 and then Coleman in 2024.

 

But all 3 of Foster, Davis and Knox had incredibly efficient seasons in limited roles that made it seem like they were locks to become stars with more usage.   Just like Khalil Shakir last year.   

 

I tend to buy Kincaid improving because he has special traits and no real glaring weakness like Shakir's lack of arm length.    But also his numbers weren't very good.    9.2 yards per reception is pathetic for anyone not lined up at RB.    If he repeated those the term "bust" would start getting tossed around.

[Sierra Foothills]

21 hours ago, NewEra said:

We can win a Super Bowl without a great WR unit.   That’s all that really matters.  If we had poor WRs and a mix of sub par to average TE, RB and OL units, I would think we’d have a discussion for doing things wrong. Instead,  we have above average to good, maybe very good units along with an elite QB.  

So many saying that we’re not helping 17 by not investing more into WR.  I agree that I’d have liked to invest more in WR, but I don’t agree that we aren’t helping him.  I think our run game will be improved and that will open up play action and Josh’s ability to move around and create time out of the pocket.  I think Josh has the ability to transform Coleman, Samuel, Shakir, Kincaid, knox, Cook, Hollins and MVS from unproven unit to a quality unit.  Kincaid, Coleman and Samuel are top 40 picks.  They’re talented-  Coleman and Samuel haven’t had the benefit of playing with 17 yet.  17 can help level them up as he will continue to do with Shakir.  Hollins has never played with a good QB.  MVS has won back to back being WR3-4.

 

I get it.  You guys want better WRs. So do I.  Let’s just not act like we’re ruining 17’s career by not having an elite WR.  We had one and he was a no show more often than not on the biggest stage

 

The bolded is what I believe as well.

 

I'll go further and say that good luck is an ingredient in pretty much every Super Bowl winning season (there are never guarantees) and that the Bills as currently constituted are good enough to win the 2025 Super Bowl.

 

Are they the favorite? No. Are they one of only a handful of teams with a realistic shot? Yes. Have they previously fallen short as favorites? Yes. Can they win even though they are not the favorites?

 

Absolutely.

 

20 hours ago, NewEra said:

Seems to me like the uproar began when we didn’t draft a WR in rd 2,3, or 4.  I was hoping for one too….but I don’t think drafting a WR in any of those rounds would’ve moved the “likely to win a Super Bowl” meter very much.  
 

Trading for Aiyuk or another big money WR would equate to going all in.  That’s not going to happen.  Salary cap squashed those hopes imo.  
 

Imo, this is a debate is more about Beanes preference to keep the cap in a manageable position as opposed to going all in.  I don’t think this season, considering our current pass rush, would’ve been the right time for that.  If von miller comes out of the gate firing, I could see Beane making a move mid season if one is available 

Funny that a KC fan would bring up kincaids age considering Kelces resume prior to turning 25

 

Yes, there was an angry and emotional response from much of the fanbase when the Bills didn't double down on WR.

 

7 hours ago, mrags said:

This is 100% what it’s all about. My dislike for Coleman is legit. But with the talent in the draft, especially in rds 2-5 that were still available and they went with depth picks. Guys that will never be more than backups at their positions (unless lightning strikes). Instead of throwing another body at the WR position. 
 

of course there’s no guarantee than any of those picks won’t be first ballot HOFers. Just like there’s no guarantee that a WR in rd 5 wouldn’t be. Just as factual that there’s no guarantee that Coleman will be any good. The point was their biggest need in the draft and this offseason was WR. And at that point they thought that 1 guy in rd2 was enough. Yet within weeks they also signed Claypool and MVS. They clearly thought they had needs there, and to pin all the hope that Coleman will be the guy is reckless. Should have snagged one more in the draft, enhance your odds of finding one that will work out. 

 

Regarding doubling down, firstly as @Sammy Watkins' Rib pointed out, the Bills top picks in each of the last two drafts were receiving weapons for Josh. So there's that.

 

One thing that I don't believe has been mentioned in the innumerable and endless WR conversations is how difficult it is to bring 2 rookie WRs up to speed in one offseason. Already the Bills are trying to assimilate two young veterans in Shakir and Kincaid as well as other receivers who were not with the team last year. A legit argument can be made that those precious snaps should go to young veterans with NFL seasoning (and accomplishments) more than they should a second rookie WR.

 

I'd be curious to know when the last time two rookie WRs both had a significant positive impact on an NFL team. I think it's not even attempted much because of the difficulty and downside to building trust with two rookies during the same offseason... at the expense of others who may be more positioned to contribute.

 

5 hours ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Mortgaging or Investing?  Getting a real WR1 for several years is team building.  Getting an Aiyuk or Metcalf is not some band-aid, it's obtaining a bedrock core piece of Phase 2 of Josh's career.  

 

You're okay with D Adams or DHop who are much older?  Those would be fallback positions IMO.  They would solve the 2024 problem but would have 2026 questions.

 

I don't know which ones are really available, just showing there seem to be options.  It's Beane's job to bring one in.  SF is acting like they are moving someone (drafted 2 WRs and just gave $10M guaranteed to J Jennings).

 

According to ESPN's Jeremy Fowler, Aiyuk wants a deal that would exceed the one recently given to Amon Ra St. Brown. The Bills cannot pay a WR $28-30 million per year and they certainly won't give up multiple high draft picks for the "privilege" of doing so.

 

Any credible opinion about the Bills wide receiver situation should not include a mention of Brandon Aiyuk.

 

 

2 hours ago, Chaos said:

Coulda shoulda woulda. One of the few patriots who never won a Super Bowl with Brady. Literally a non-factor for ever winning a championship. 

 

Just as an interestingly side conversation, there is a Patriot who will be in the Hall of Fame soon and played 9 seasons with Brady but never won a Super Bowl. That player is Logan Mankins. If I remember correctly the Patriots won a Super Bowl just before his rookie season and also the season after he retired.

 

1 hour ago, mrags said:

If you really think you’re better off having a bunch of Joes at WR then a top 10 guy then I don’t know what to tell you. There’s plenty of replies I could have made instead of what I did. But at the end of the day none of it makes a difference. In the end plenty of people were angry that Diggs dropped that pass last year which could have won us the game. Instead we want to replace him with a bunch of joes that aren’t even as good. And I’m perfectly fine getting rid of Diggs. But the fact is they are trying to replace hundreds of targets from last year with a has been head case, a guy that drops more balls than Davis, and a completely unknown rookie. Adding more young talent is not and wouldn’t have been a bad thing. 

 

As @LeGOATski and others have mentioned, you do need very good players BUT it's also the mix of skills which are important. Please don't misconstrue what I'm about to write but I found the following information in Sal Maiorana's recent D&C piece pretty interesting:

 

"For his career, Valdes-Scantling’s average depth of target it 16.3 yards and his yards per reception is 17.0... for comparison, Diggs’ average depth of target is 11.2 yards and his yards per catch is 12.3. A closer comparison would be the career of John Brown who was with the Bills in 2019, 2020 and part of 2022 and was always considered a vertical threat. His career depth of target was 15.5 yards and his yards per catch was 14.9."

 

In the leadup to the draft, selecting a player that could "take the top off a defense" was BY FAR the biggest trait that all of us wanted to see from a rookie wide receiver.

 

Again I'm not heralding the addition of MVS and Chase Claypool as saviors for the Bills passing game BUT the Bills now have 2 players who have proven in the NFL that they can take the top off a defense.

 

Last year, the Bills had zero players of that type.

 

I'm probably in the minority but I'm happy and satisfied with the moves the Bills have made this offseason. I accept that we're not going all-in this offseason (for the first time in several seasons) but I know with the salary cap projections and the stockpile of high draft picks that the Bills will be loaded for bear next offseason.

 

1 hour ago, mrags said:

That’s what they believe. Yes. 

It’s useless 808. They’ll never get it. 

 

People can understand differing viewpoints without necessarily agreeing with those viewpoints.

 

 

[FireChans]

4 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

I'd be curious to know when the last time two rookie WRs both had a significant positive impact on an NFL team

You don’t have to go far back. Happened for the Packers last year.

 

if you’d like to go back a little bit more, you can go to 2022 for the Packers as well. 

[mrags]

10 minutes ago, FireChans said:

You don’t have to go far back. Happened for the Packers last year.

 

if you’d like to go back a little bit more, you can go to 2022 for the Packers as well. 

Without quoting the long version of @Sierra Foothills post, I thought I’d add to yours. 
 

the bigger issue isn’t trying to manage playing time and touches for 2 young rookies. I look at it more like minimizing the chances of Coleman not working out. Forget THIS SEASON. I’m talking about the long term. We all know that Samuel, MVS, and Claypool are only here for 1-2 years each. Coleman is supposed to be on the other side of that bridge. If he doesn’t work out, we’re right back to where we were, 3 more years down and during our superstar QBs prime. I say this jokingly, but only a little bit. I would have seriously drafted 2-4 WRs in this draft regardless of other needs. Get Josh weapons he can grow with over years. Instead they took a shot at one, and if he doesn’t work out we’re right back to square one again. Except Josh will be 30+ by the time McDoofus and his gaggle of merry men figure that out. 

[FireChans]

14 minutes ago, mrags said:

Without quoting the long version of @Sierra Foothills post, I thought I’d add to yours. 
 

the bigger issue isn’t trying to manage playing time and touches for 2 young rookies. I look at it more like minimizing the chances of Coleman not working out. Forget THIS SEASON. I’m talking about the long term. We all know that Samuel, MVS, and Claypool are only here for 1-2 years each. Coleman is supposed to be on the other side of that bridge. If he doesn’t work out, we’re right back to where we were, 3 more years down and during our superstar QBs prime. I say this jokingly, but only a little bit. I would have seriously drafted 2-4 WRs in this draft regardless of other needs. Get Josh weapons he can grow with over years. Instead they took a shot at one, and if he doesn’t work out we’re right back to square one again. Except Josh will be 30+ by the time McDoofus and his gaggle of merry men figure that out. 

Even if Coleman has a good rookie season this year, we enter 2025 with our biggest need STILL being WR.

 

That's the real rub. The position group hasn't been fixed. And it feels like a really big missed opportunity with a historic WR draft.

 

And sure, there's some risk in rolling out two rookie WR's to get significant snaps, but when the entire justification for the 2024 year is not going "all-in" but instead having a re-tooling, what better time to let the rookies make some mistakes and prove they can be better players than JAGs like Hollins or MVS?

 

To me, it made total sense to come out of the 2024 offseason with 2 young WR's AND set the team up to be back to an upper echelon contender in 2025. Then you have two second year WR's with different skillsets with a year experience in the offense under their belt, a third year Kincaid who should be blossoming, and a contract year Shakir. That could've been special.

 

Instead, we're hoping that Claypool and MVS can stave off their careers ending for one more year to end up back where we started.

[Einstein's Dog]

25 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

According to ESPN's Jeremy Fowler, Aiyuk wants a deal that would exceed the one recently given to Amon Ra St. Brown. The Bills cannot pay a WR $28-30 million per year and they certainly won't give up multiple high draft picks for the "privilege" of doing so.

 

Any credible opinion about the Bills wide receiver situation should not include a mention of Brandon Aiyuk.

 

Why can't the Bills pay market rates for a top tier WR?  It's been an excellent working strategy to date.  Just because they shipped Diggs out doesn't mean you abandon the winning strategy.  The Bills have adopted an inexpensive RB room, in part to allocate funds to the WR.

 

With a backloaded contract a WR like Aiyuk could be done.  The Bills currently have very inexpensive offensive playmakers under contract for several years so having one expensive playmaker should be able to be budgeted.  It had been in the past.  Prices for good WRs is on the rise.

 

Lets not shut down reasonable discussion of the Bills wide receiver situation just because you have a preset bias.  You believe the Bills won't add a WR and can't afford it under the cap.  I don't fully buy into Beane's off-season words, think the strategy all along has been to add one, and believe it is entirely possible cap-wise.

[FireChans]

8 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Why can't the Bills pay market rates for a top tier WR?  It's been an excellent working strategy to date.  Just because they shipped Diggs out doesn't mean you abandon the winning strategy.  The Bills have adopted an inexpensive RB room, in part to allocate funds to the WR.

 

With a backloaded contract a WR like Aiyuk could be done.  The Bills currently have very inexpensive offensive playmakers under contract for several years so having one expensive playmaker should be able to be budgeted.  It had been in the past.  Prices for good WRs is on the rise.

 

Let’s not shut down reasonable discussion of the Bills wide receiver situation just because you have a preset bias.  You believe the Bills won't add a WR and can't afford it under the cap.  I don't fully buy into Beane's off-season words, think the strategy all along has been to add one, and believe it is entirely possible cap-wise.

Just FYI, we have -6M in space next year

[Maine-iac]

Does the argument that you keep drafting until you get the desired level of play from that position also apply to DE?  I know the board would lose it's mind if we had drafted a DE in the first.  I very much feel like people love stats, especially passing stats.  Over and over again teams have won SB's with WR's who names are barely remembered 2 or 3 years later.  Elite QB's and TE's are a rinse and repeat recipe. 

[folz]

On 6/1/2024 at 10:43 AM, FireChans said:

How many teams win without a top 32 receiver?

 

On 6/1/2024 at 11:39 AM, FireChans said:

Do they have a guy on the roster who has ever been 32nd or better in receiving yards ever in their career? You believe in results, show me the results, not hopes and prayers.

 

On 6/1/2024 at 12:07 PM, FireChans said:

Samuel was 33 in 2020. But yes Claypool was 31 and sneaks in. You are right.

 

The original discussion was a top 32 receiver. If you subtract TEs and go with just receivers, then Claypool was 29th in 2020 and 31st in 2021, and Samuel was 31st in 2020. But that's just nit-picking and granted, it was a while ago for both of them. But, it at least shows that they have the ability to do it.

 

 

Over the last 5 years, the 32nd WR in yards in the NFL has averaged: 67 receptions for 848 yards and 5 TDs.

 

Last year, Shakir had 39 receptions for 611 yards and 2 TDs. If you prorate his receptions up to the average of the 32nd WR (67 receptions), Shakir would have 67 receptions for 1,050 yards and 3.5 TDs. Now prorating stats is not a predictor, of course, but having a more focal point in the offense from the start of the season and all of the targets left by Diggs and Davis, might not Khalil be able to add 237 yards (that's 14 yards/game) and a couple of TDs over the season? For the first 7 games last year, he only averaged a 26% snap count---his snap count for the entire season ended up being 52%. He only saw 5 total targets in the first 6 games last year. He'll see a lot more playing time this year. And he had an 86.7% catch percentage last season (that's pretty impressive).

 

And with Kincaid most likely being the #1 target this year (and again, from the start of the season, and all the free targets), do you not think that he can add 175 yards (that's 10 yards/game) and 3 TDs to his totals from last year? With those meager improvements in stats from Shakir and Kincaid, we would have two top 32 receiving yard players---without even discussing the opportunities for Coleman, Samuel, and Claypool. Now, I'm not saying you don't want better than say your top two targets at 31st and 32nd in yards, just pointing out that it wouldn't take much to at least be at that level.

 

And, just FYI, over the last 10 games of last season:

Diggs and Davis combined for 734 yards and 3 TDs on a 78.8% snap count (Diggs averaged 42 yards/game and had only 1 TD over the last 10 games-including playoffs---it's not like he was playing like a #1 receiver last year).

Shakir and Kincaid combined for 900 yards and 5 TDs on a 61.5% snap count

 

And just to see what it would take for Kincaid to not just take another step, but actually be a top TE (what he has to shoot for):

Over the last 5 years, the top three TEs in the league averaged 91 receptions for 1,089 yards and 6 TDs.

Dalton had 73 receptions for 673 yards and 2 TDs. Can we expect an extra 400 yards (that would be a jump from 40 yards/game to about 64 yards/game on average) and 4 more TDs from him? Hopefully, at least at some point---doesn't seem outrageous, but, yes, it still remains to be seen. Now, if he could just up his yards/reception from 9.2 last year to about 12 this year (and add 4 more TDs across the season), he would be in the elite TE range. And I think the low yards/reception was more about the Bills offense last year, rather than any flaw with Kincaid.

 

 

I could be wrong again about the overall receiving corps (I did think we would be fine last year---at least Samuel, Claypool, MVS, Hollins are more proven in the league than Harty and Sherfield were). But I have a lot of confidence in Kincaid and Shakir after last season. I have always liked Samuel as a player and we'll finally see him with a top QB. I like the talk about Claypool at this point, but not "counting" on him by any means yet. And Knox is a pretty darn good TE #2. So, I think a lot is riding on Coleman. If he can come in and contribute solidly this year (not as a #1, but maybe #3 or #4 in targets/receptions), I think we'll be really solid actually. If he's not ready this season (there doesn't seem to be any indications of that, at least yet), and Claypool and MVS don't pan out either, then yes, we could be very thin. But, even though there is no apparent/proven elite playmaker in the receiving corps, we did get bigger, stronger, faster, better hands, better red zone targets...so it's not all bad.

 

I wonder if a lot of this discussion really resides on how confident someone feels about Coleman as a player/pick at this point. People wanted a high draft pick WR---Keon was pick #33. The Bills obviously liked him more than 3 of the guys drafted above him (Worthy, Pearsall, Legette). The only other realistic option was to go up and get Brian Thompson Jr. If the Bills had done that would that have made a difference for people in any way? Or did it have to be a true #1 veteran WR? But then, those aren't easy to come by either. I mean, when Gabriel Davis got the second best WR FA contract...

 

I'm just not sure how much else the Bills could have realistically done this year. I don't think you sell out that big in the draft for a top-3 WR, we didn't have a ton of cap space, and if you want to trade for someone, first you actually need a partner, and then you need the money and compensation. And with the way the end of last year played out (and his lack of production in the playoffs), I actually think Diggs was addition by subtraction at this stage.

 

Basically, through trade or FA, the only actual proven #1 WRs that were available to this point were: Calvin Ridley, Keenan Allen, and Diontae Johnson. Not sure that Ridley and Johnson fit the Bills DNA for a start, and Allen is 32 years old and was carrying a 23.1 million cap hit for 2024. And with a lot of the other available guys (Jeudy, Mooney, Moore, etc.), you would be projecting just as much with them as you would be with Shakir or Samuel, imo. Or, basically, it wouldn't be a guarantee that they would be better than what we already have to put us over the top or whatever.

 

Am I looking through rose-colored, homer glasses? Maybe, but I don't know, I have a good feeling about this group as it currently stands, especially in lieu of the limitations the team had putting the group together.

 

Plus, it will be a different offense than we ran the last few years. I believe (just my opinion) they are going for a more ball-control offense, probably like a 54/46 run/pass ratio. Look, the way defenses have tried to stop Josh is with cover zero and to make him be patient marching the ball down the field on long drives (don't give up the big pass plays). The only way to open that up is with the run game and underneath passes. With a better run game and a more old-New England style pass game, we will force teams out of that defense, or we'll just march down the field on them in small chunks. The skill players we have now are much more suited to that style of play. And with a better run game, you aren't asking Josh to put everything on his back (either as a runner or in the pass game).

 

15 hours ago, FireChans said:

The biggest problem for most fans who won’t stop complaining about this is that in a super deep WR draft that was filled with need picks by the Bills, the Bills didn’t feel like they needed a 2nd WR over a 2nd RB or a safety or a 2nd 3T.

 

We just lost two All-Pro safeties. Are you really saying adding another WR (after Coleman had already been picked) was more important than adding a safety that should be able to start early?

 

With the way the Bills rotate the D-line, that 2nd 3T will probably see around a 45% snap count this year (basically a co-starter).

 

Maybe you could say a RB wasn't needed, but hopefully Ray Davis will prove you wrong there. Again, if he is on the field like 30-40% this year, that's important snaps, and as I said I believe there will be a bigger focus on the running attack this year. Were you really sold with Ty Johnson as your #2 RB?

 

All three of those players will see WAY more playing time than a 3rd or 4th round WR would (unless that pick was so good that as a rookie he could beat out all but one or two of Shakir, Samuel, Coleman, Claypool, MVS, Hollins). Honestly, what is the likelihood of that? Yes, it was a deep WR class, but we are talking about the 12th WR in the draft (instead of Cole Bishop), the 17th WR in the draft (for Carter), or the 22nd WR (instead of Ray Davis). How deep is deep? There is no guarantee that those players would help much this year. To put a face to it, the next WR picked after each of those Bills picked were Malachi Corley (western Kentucky), Luke Mcaffrey (Rice), and Jacob Cowing (Arizona).

 

 

I know people hate long posts...sorry...and thanks if you actually read the whole thing.

[mrags]

5 minutes ago, Maine-iac said:

Does the argument that you keep drafting until you get the desired level of play from that position also apply to DE?  I know the board would lose it's mind if we had drafted a DE in the first.  I very much feel like people love stats, especially passing stats.  Over and over again teams have won SB's with WR's who names are barely remembered 2 or 3 years later.  Elite QB's and TE's are a rinse and repeat recipe. 

I think the issue is multiple things. 
 

1. they have thrown countless resources at the DE position. Draft, FA. They’ve definitely taken their shots there. 
 

2. The bigger issue to me is the issue that McDermott loves his rotational DLine philosophy too much. It absolutely take away from the need to have a stud pass rusher imo. Even if they did have one on the team, McDermott would still rotate him in and out because he’s an idiot. 

[Maine-iac]

2 minutes ago, mrags said:

I think the issue is multiple things. 
 

1. they have thrown countless resources at the DE position. Draft, FA. They’ve definitely taken their shots there. 
 

2. The bigger issue to me is the issue that McDermott loves his rotational DLine philosophy too much. It absolutely take away from the need to have a stud pass rusher imo. Even if they did have one on the team, McDermott would still rotate him in and out because he’s an idiot. 

I do actually agree with everything you are saying but I also feel like people just love passing stats.  If we don't have a WR with big numbers they lose their minds.  Just like every time we lose in the playoffs they want to invest more in the offense to "outscore" every body.   There is not really a pick in this years draft I have major problems with.

[Sierra Foothills]

2 hours ago, FireChans said:

You don’t have to go far back. Happened for the Packers last year.

 

if you’d like to go back a little bit more, you can go to 2022 for the Packers as well. 

 

I'm on lunch break so please excuse me for asking you to back your assertion.

 

Who were the two rookies and what were their stats?

 

Thank you.

 

1 hour ago, mrags said:

Without quoting the long version of @Sierra Foothills post, I thought I’d add to yours. 
 

the bigger issue isn’t trying to manage playing time and touches for 2 young rookies. I look at it more like minimizing the chances of Coleman not working out. Forget THIS SEASON. I’m talking about the long term. We all know that Samuel, MVS, and Claypool are only here for 1-2 years each. Coleman is supposed to be on the other side of that bridge. If he doesn’t work out, we’re right back to where we were, 3 more years down and during our superstar QBs prime. I say this jokingly, but only a little bit. I would have seriously drafted 2-4 WRs in this draft regardless of other needs. Get Josh weapons he can grow with over years. Instead they took a shot at one, and if he doesn’t work out we’re right back to square one again. Except Josh will be 30+ by the time McDoofus and his gaggle of merry men figure that out. 

 

To the bolded, I know that though you occasionally affirm that none of us can know for sure, it's pretty clear that you don't think Coleman will succeed... based on the body of your comments about him since before he was drafted. Most of your secondary arguments seem like they are built on that single belief.

 

If on the other hand you believe that Coleman will succeed, then IMO there's no reasonable basis to think that with the continued development of Shakir and Kincaid, the additions of Samuel, MVS, and Claypool, atop the baseline established by Cook and Knox, that the Bills will have surrounded Josh with enough good weapons... and that there's no reason to double down.

 

Many other posters on this board agree with you... they don't like the Coleman pick so they wanted to double down, even though as @folz pointed out, how do you justify doubling down when Hyde and Poyer are no longer on the roster?

 

So the people who wanted to double down should at least say which round and which player they wanted instead of the player we drafted. THEN we're having a worthwhile conversation.

 

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

Even if Coleman has a good rookie season this year, we enter 2025 with our biggest need STILL being WR.

 

That's the real rub. The position group hasn't been fixed. And it feels like a really big missed opportunity with a historic WR draft.

 

And sure, there's some risk in rolling out two rookie WR's to get significant snaps, but when the entire justification for the 2024 year is not going "all-in" but instead having a re-tooling, what better time to let the rookies make some mistakes and prove they can be better players than JAGs like Hollins or MVS?

 

To me, it made total sense to come out of the 2024 offseason with 2 young WR's AND set the team up to be back to an upper echelon contender in 2025. Then you have two second year WR's with different skillsets with a year experience in the offense under their belt, a third year Kincaid who should be blossoming, and a contract year Shakir. That could've been special.

 

Instead, we're hoping that Claypool and MVS can stave off their careers ending for one more year to end up back where we started.

 

Again that's your opinion and it's not necessarily wrong... but I believe that if Coleman has a good rookie season, that the state of the WR corps will not be the reason the Bills don't win the Super Bowl.

 

Regarding MVS, there's no reason to believe he's slowing down. From Sal's article (PTSD spoiler alert):

 

"... last January when Valdes-Scantling made two huge plays for the Chiefs when they defeated the Bills in the divisional playoff game at Highmark Stadium.

On the first play of the third quarter, he lined up in the slot and drew man coverage from Taron Johnson who is five inches shorter. Patrick Mahomes recognized the matchup and Valdes-Scantling ran a seam route and despite tight coverage, he made a superb catch for a 30-yard gain. Five plays later the Chiefs were in the end zone and in the lead, 20-17. Then later in the third, after the Bills had regained a 24-20 advantage, Valdes-Scantling struck again. On a second-and-7 from the Buffalo 48, he was again in the slot and ran a route where he found a hole in zone coverage between Rasul Douglas and Micah Hyde and Mahomes hit for a 32-yard gain. That big play led to Isaiah Pacheco scoring what proved to be the winning touchdown."

 

Some people here belief that the addition of Curtis Samuel, MVS, and Chase Claypool are equivalent to signing Trent Sherfield and Deonte Harty.

 

I'm not one of those people.

 

1 hour ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Why can't the Bills pay market rates for a top tier WR?  It's been an excellent working strategy to date.  Just because they shipped Diggs out doesn't mean you abandon the winning strategy.  The Bills have adopted an inexpensive RB room, in part to allocate funds to the WR.

 

With a backloaded contract a WR like Aiyuk could be done.  The Bills currently have very inexpensive offensive playmakers under contract for several years so having one expensive playmaker should be able to be budgeted.  It had been in the past.  Prices for good WRs is on the rise.

 

Lets not shut down reasonable discussion of the Bills wide receiver situation just because you have a preset bias.  You believe the Bills won't add a WR and can't afford it under the cap.  I don't fully buy into Beane's off-season words, think the strategy all along has been to add one, and believe it is entirely possible cap-wise.

 

To the bolded, that's a good question and one the Vikings are asking themselves about Justin Jefferson. But you didn't address the draft compensation issue. Unlike Jefferson who is simply a matter of re-signing, the Bills would have to send multiple high draft picks to the Niners for Aiyuk.

 

Tell me, what would you be willing to trade for Aiyuk?