Brett Kollmann - Good analysis of the Bills based on watching tape not just following narratives

[NewEra]

47 minutes ago, JohnNord said:

Beane has been making the rounds and while he hasn’t been specific, he simply said it was “the right time” to make a move.

 

You have to read between the lines of what he says but IMO I think this suggests that Diggs wasn’t happy with a reduced role in the offense and wanted out.  Plus things happened behind the scenes over the past year or which likely contributed to the deal.
 

He also said it was time for new players to emerge as leaders.   Diggs was very vocal and as a team leader as captain, which might not have been a good thing.     
 

Also, I think the Bills planned to get out Diggs’ contract next season.  They saw a malcontent player with declining skills that was still paid like “him” and would be looking at eating some his contract through release.  Then Houston offered above average compensation for a 31 year-old WR.  Next year, his value is greatly diminished, and they would barely get anything.  So because of this, they decided the bite the bullet contractually and move on.  

Finally, Beane alluded that you have to grade postseason performances with a curve.  IMO this is definitely pointed at Diggs’ performance against KC which was really bad for a player who considers himself elite.  
 

All of those factors contributed to the trade.  I don’t think the tweet had anything to do with it.  They’ve been putting up with Diggs (or his brother) being passive aggressive on Twitter for years.  

 

I agree with all of this-  trading him was part of the plan if they could get good value-  I think they got good value, it just doesn’t kick in until next draft.  
 

I just can’t believe that the tweet wouldn’t ruffle their feathers.

[PBF81]

2 hours ago, JohnNord said:

Yes he does.  If you watch the video they break down the differences between Dorsey and Brady as play callers.  
 

These two do a very good explaining the problem with the Ken Dorsey offense.  It relied too much on deep shots to receivers who just aren’t great vs. man coverage.    It was all or nothing. 
 

Rather than continually throwing at a disadvantage Brady played to what the offense did well by mixing in short passes and a run game.  The deep shots were still there though Allen wasn’t able to connect for one reason or another.  
 

Still, there are some who want to complain that Brady “took the air out of the football.”  

 

I did watch the video.  I was going to run through it again, although not sure if I want to invest the time. 

 

They contradicted themselves a couple of times and were inaccurate on a few things, more the narrative-driven stuff.   For instance, they said that Cook got stronger as the season wore on, which is flat out the opposite of what happened.  They also essentially ignore the fact that it was Allen's rushing, not Cook or the other RBs, that accounted for the increase in our rushing yardage and 1st-Downs.  

 

Cook actually got fewer 1st-Downs under Brady on average.  In fact, of Cook's 7 games under Brady, 6 of 9 were his lowest 1st-Down producing games on the season.  His yards-per-carry average plummeted to 3.5 his last five games including the playoffs, to bottom-dwelling territory.  He was not good to finish the season.  If he does that this season all season he'll end up not being here next season.  The only exception for Cook was that Dallas game where Dallas came in completely off and worn out from the Philly game Sunday night prior to playing us.  That was their biggest game of the season.  

 

I'm not a fan of either Dorsey or Brady, but if we're going to be honest, Brady's offense was not significantly better than Dorsey's if better at all.  

 

They were fitting their points to the narratives.  

 

Keep in mind that our offense averaged 19.3 PPG against three pretty crappy defenses to end the season.  After our bye week it averaged 21.9 PPG, which is 4.6 PPG fewer than our season average, in those five games.  In the playoffs not one player stepped up to much more than average, if even that, besides Allen.  

 

What they largely ignored when talking about "Brady's offense" is how our D played significantly better allowing 18.1 PPG with Brady as the OC and under Dorsey it averaged 18.4.  

 

The statistical distributions of the games under Brady v. Dorsey were essentially the same otherwise.  

 

I have a question(s) though, for anyone, but since you and I are engaging, for you now.  What is the identity that the team is creating on offense?  Effectively, not on paper.  Keep in mind, it started with the switch from Dorsey to Brady, on paper/narrative anyway.  Has that identity been consistent over the past few seasons?  

 

 

Edited June 21 by PBF81

[BADOLBILZ]

6 hours ago, Rampant Buffalo said:

 

I watched a video of every pass attempt for Coleman for the 2023 season. Once I'd finished, my gut level reaction was, I'd never want to take a guy like this before the 4th round. Even then, I'd say, "Well, this is a weak draft. I have to use my 4th round pick on someone. May as well be him. I . . . guess?"

 

I was pretty down on Coleman as a 1st or 2nd round prospect.   I'd been following his game since he hit the transfer portal after 2022.   I wanted the Bills to pass altogether on him because they don't/didn't need projects.   That said,   I know he has a good deal of potential.   But I just don't see it being accessible enough early in his career.    As Kollman says in this video........they've compiled a room full of slot receivers.    A washed up version of MVS coming off a 300 yard season despite the most opportunity he's had in his entire career?   That isn't very intriguing either, IMO.

Edited June 20 by BADOLBILZ
Kollman auto corrects to Coleman wtf

[Rampant Buffalo]

8 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

I was pretty down on Coleman as a 1st or 2nd round prospect.   I'd been following his game since he hit the transfer portal after 2022.   I wanted the Bills to pass altogether on him because they don't/didn't need projects.   That said,   I know he has a good deal of potential.   But I just don't see it being accessible enough early in his career.    As Kollman says in this video........they've compiled a room full of slot receivers.    A washed up version of MVS coming off a 300 yard season despite the most opportunity he's had in his entire career?   That isn't very intriguing either, IMO.

 

 

"And God was wroth with the people. And God punished the people, with fire and brimstone, with plague, with famine, with locusts, with boils, and with autocorrect."

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, NewEra said:

you’re acting as if I’m saying the only reason he was traded is because of the tweet.  That’s not what I’m saying.  I believe that they were taking offers and wanted to trade him but they didn’t like the offers enough to pull the trigger just yet. The tweet help madden  offer look a little sweeter- having your WR that has been in the negative spotlight almost every offseason talk smack on his QB could even lead to his value dropping if he were to say something on top of the tweet-  

 

agree to disagree

 

you don’t find what Diggs said to be offensive to Josh?  If you do, you don’t think that’s an issue?

 

What part of this was insufficiently clear and how could I express myself in a clearer way?
 

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

And yes, I think the tweet was a shot at Josh.

 

[JohnNord]

31 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

I did watch the video.  I was going to run through it again, although not sure if I want to invest the time. 

 

They contradicted themselves a couple of times and were inaccurate on a few things, more the narrative-driven stuff.   For instance, they said that Cook got stronger as the season wore on, which is flat out the opposite of what happened.  They also essentially ignore the fact that it was Allen's rushing, not Cook or the other RBs, that accounted for the increase in our rushing yardage and 1st-Downs.  

 

Cook actually got fewer 1st-Downs under Brady on average.  In fact, of Cook's 7 games under Brady, 6 of 9 were his lowest 1st-Down producing games on the season.  His yards-per-carry average plummeted to 3.5 his last five games including the playoffs, to bottom-dwelling territory.  He was not good to finish the season.  If he does that this season all season he'll end up not being here next season.  The only exception for Cook was that Dallas game where Dallas came in completely off and worn out from the Philly game Sunday night prior to playing us.  That was their biggest game of the season.  

 

I'm not a fan of either Dorsey or Brady, but if we're going to be honest, Brady's offense was not significantly better than Dorsey's if better at all.  

 

They were fitting their points to the narratives.  

 

Keep in mind that our offense averaged 19.3 PPG against three pretty crappy defenses to end the season.  After our bye week it averaged 21.9 PPG, which is 4.6 PPG fewer than our season average, in those five games.  In the playoffs not one player stepped up to much more than average, if even that, besides Allen.  

 

What they largely ignored when talking about "Brady's offense" is how our D played significantly better allowing 18.1 PPG with Brady as the OC and under Dorsey it averaged 18.4.  

 

The statistical distributions of the games under Brady v. Dorsey were essentially the same otherwise.  

 

I have a question(s) though, for anyone, but since you and I are engaging, for you now.  What is the identity that the team is creating on offense?  Effectively, not on paper.  Keep in mind, it started with the switch from Dorsey to Brady, on paper/narrative anyway.  Has that identity been consistent over the past few seasons?  

 

 

Again, if you watch the video they explain this.  Almost all of the Bills success came from shot plays mostly to Diggs.  It never was sustainable and a huge reason why the team EPA was so inflated.  Defenses caught on and Diggs struggled in man-to-man coverage.
 

As far as narratives you’re essentially doing the same thing to make your point.   The Bills points per game were largely padded by 3 weeks of blowout.  The final 6 games they struggled to score much more 20 points and went 2-4.  
 

I don’t think we know exactly what Brady’s offense will look like.  But in my opinion the offense looked much better

 

[Doc]

12 minutes ago, JohnNord said:

Again, if you watch the video they explain this.  Almost all of the Bills success came from shot plays mostly to Diggs.  It never was sustainable and a huge reason why the team EPA was so inflated.  Defenses caught on and Diggs struggled in man-to-man coverage.
 

As far as narratives you’re essentially doing the same thing to make your point.   The Bills points per game were largely padded by 3 weeks of blowout.  The final 6 games they struggled to score much more 20 points and went 2-4.  
 

I don’t think we know exactly what Brady’s offense will look like.  But in my opinion the offense looked much better

 

?

[JohnNord]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

?

The final 6 games of Dorsey

[julian]

4 hours ago, Billy Claude said:

 

That the Bills expected to have Diggs on the team this season is the only way that the WR strategy made any sense.

Yes… Diggs forced his way out, Allen and McDermott were done with it and they were onto plan B which didn’t/couldn’t involve replacing Diggs this year.

[Doc]

We'll see how the plan at WR goes.  Many thought they had no plan at MLB when they let Edmunds walk.

Edited June 21 by Doc

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, JohnNord said:

Again, if you watch the video they explain this.  Almost all of the Bills success came from shot plays mostly to Diggs.  It never was sustainable and a huge reason why the team EPA was so inflated.  Defenses caught on and Diggs struggled in man-to-man coverage.
 

As far as narratives you’re essentially doing the same thing to make your point.   The Bills points per game were largely padded by 3 weeks of blowout.  The final 6 games they struggled to score much more 20 points and went 2-4.  
 

I don’t think we know exactly what Brady’s offense will look like.  But in my opinion the offense looked much better

 

 

"Looked" is very subjective.  IMO this is the season where the wheels finally come off of the wagon and McD starts taking heat for lack of being able to deflect it any longer.  

 

We'll see.  

 

You didn't answer the question though.  Was there a reason why not?  

 

 

[Sierra Foothills]

15 hours ago, TheWeatherMan said:

Quick…name a 1st round draft prospect that “plenty of people” on the MB didn’t projected as a bust? 

 

14 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

It's a matter of degree.

 

 

13 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

It's a matter of degree in your head.

 

A team that desperately needed a WR1 got the 8th WR off the board.

 

Expectations are lower than a typical first rounder?  (which he wasn't, btw)

 

 You don't say! 

 

@Weatherman called him a 1st round draft prospect... not a first rounder.

 

So your sharpshooting is off the mark.

 

As far as my comment about "matter of degree" which you seem to be trying to sharpshoot as well... are you saying that the criticism of the Coleman pick isn't more than normal for the team's first draft pick? Because that's what I'm saying.

 

13 hours ago, Doc said:

Hopefully, he’s as much of a bust as Josh was.

 

That's certainly what I'm hoping for. But I'm not pretending to know how it'll all turn out.

 

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

What part of this was insufficiently clear and how could I express myself in a clearer way?
 

 

Sorry, I suppose I replied before finishing reading your post.  
 

I don’t see how any GM would be ok with that tweet and knowing Diggs’ history, we’ve seen this before.  Walks like a Diggs move, quacks like a Diggs move, it’s probably a Diggs move 

 

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

We'll see how the plan at WR goes.  Many thought they had no plan when they let Edmunds walk.

Yup.  I think the plan is Kincaid + RBs being the pace setters for the offense and using the WRs best to suit their skill sets.  I also think Shakir and Samuel will fair better outside situationally than many think.  

[BillsFanForever19]

6 hours ago, Billy Claude said:

 

That the Bills expected to have Diggs on the team this season is the only way that the WR strategy made any sense.

 

They did. Beane said as much anytime he was brought up. If the plan was to move on from Diggs, they would have done it early when they were getting rid of everyone else and would have had a different plan for attacking Free Agency early. And you don't eat that much dead cap unless you feel you don't have a choice.

 

It was clear from Beane's presser when he refused to answer whether Diggs had demanded a trade and in the timing of it - both from when it was done in the Offseason and how soon after his last tweet throwing shade at Josh - things just hit a breaking point and it was done out of necessity rather than wanting to.

 

Another thing he said in the presser was that everything he does is with what's best for the Bills in mind. And although he said we're not better without him, the move was what was best for the Bills. I don't know any other way of looking at that other than that the situation had become untenable.

 

If Diggs hadn't gone nuclear, both publicly and probably even worse privately, he'd still be here.

Edited June 21 by BillsFanForever19

[Rampant Buffalo]

4 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

I was pretty down on Coleman as a 1st or 2nd round prospect.   I'd been following his game since he hit the transfer portal after 2022.   I wanted the Bills to pass altogether on him because they don't/didn't need projects.   That said,   I know he has a good deal of potential.   But I just don't see it being accessible enough early in his career.    As Kollman says in this video........they've compiled a room full of slot receivers.    A washed up version of MVS coming off a 300 yard season despite the most opportunity he's had in his entire career?   That isn't very intriguing either, IMO.

 

To give a somewhat more serious reply to your post: going into the draft, I wanted the Bills to either trade up for one of the top three WRs, or stay put and take Ladd McConkey. When the first round ended, the Bills were sitting there with 33rd overall, not yet used, and McConkey still available. A night of false hope, before the Bills took Coleman. Then McConkey went at 34. The Bills had already traded away Diggs at this point. Going into the draft, they needed a Z receiver (Diggs replacement) and an X (Gabe Davis replacement). In college, McConkey primarily played Z.

 

What was the logic in taking Coleman over McConkey? This is purely speculation on my part, but I think they were frustrated with Diggs' lack of production in the playoffs, especially against the Chiefs. The Chiefs generally use press coverage. Getting off of press isn't one of the stronger aspects of McConkey's game. Maybe they felt a bigger, stronger player, such as Coleman, would be more successful against press coverage than McConkey would have been.

 

There's sense to a thought process like that. I just don't agree with it. At some point, you have to draft the better player. In college, McConkey was a much better player than Coleman. But, Coleman is the player we got. I hope those who see untapped potential in him are right, and that I am wrong. If Coleman plays at a Stevie Johnson level, for at least seven years in a Bills uniform, I'll be happy and call the pick a success.

[BADOLBILZ]

12 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

 

 

@Weatherman called him a 1st round draft prospect... not a first rounder.

 

So your sharpshooting is off the mark.

 

As far as my comment about "matter of degree" which you seem to be trying to sharpshoot as well... are you saying that the criticism of the Coleman pick isn't more than normal for the team's first draft pick? Because that's what I'm saying.

 

 

That's certainly what I'm hoping for. But I'm not pretending to know how it'll all turn out.

 

 

 

@Weatherman and @Magox just forgot that he wasn't a first round pick.

 

Nor did any NFL team have a first round grade on him.

 

So let's not hyperbolize his status as a prospect.

 

He was well within the next tier of day 2 prospects.

 

Just because 150+ different players appeared as first rounders in various mocks in the 12 months prior to a draft doesn't mean we should consider them all first round talents.  

 

See Van Pran Granger as a specific example.   Mocked as a first at times........went in the 5th.

 

As for your take.........you simply protest far too much about his treatment.

 

Coleman has gotten a TON of hype from the media and fans.    He was literally and figuratively painted as Diggs successor.

 

 

Beane basically called him their starting X receiver and fans are expecting him to become WR1 right-quick.

 

So yeah,  there are going to be stronger reactions than to "first round prospects" like Kincaid, Elam or Rousseau who weren't being asked to immediately replace superstar production. 

[Einstein's Dog]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

@Weatherman and @Magox just forgot that he wasn't a first round pick.

 

Nor did any NFL team have a first round grade on him.

 

So let's not hyperbolize his status as a prospect.

 

He was well within the next tier of day 2 prospects.

 

Just because 150+ different players appeared as first rounders in various mocks in the 12 months prior to a draft doesn't mean we should consider them all first round talents.  

 

See Van Pran Granger as a specific example.   Mocked as a first at times........went in the 5th.

 

As for your take.........you simply protest far too much about his treatment.

 

Coleman has gotten a TON of hype from the media and fans.    He was literally and figuratively painted as Diggs successor.

 

 

Beane basically called him their starting X receiver and fans are expecting him to become WR1 right-quick.

 

So yeah,  there are going to be stronger reactions than to "first round prospects" like Kincaid, Elam or Rousseau who weren't being asked to immediately replace superstar production. 

For me, there is making sense of moves.  I don't mind the pick, it's just the process that is confusing to me.

 

They like K Coleman but moved down twice.  With both outside WRs from last year gone, they take a WR that by most accounts is young and raw, and should be given some time. 

 

And building on above, getting a young, raw, high ceiling WR, they gave up the 5th year option.  

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

For me, there is making sense of moves.  I don't mind the pick, it's just the process that is confusing to me.

 

They like K Coleman but moved down twice.  With both outside WRs from last year gone, they take a WR that by most accounts is young and raw, and should be given some time. 

 

And building on above, getting a young, raw, high ceiling WR, they gave up the 5th year option.  

 

I don't think they care about the 5th year option.  If they deem him worth keeping before his 5th year, they extend him like they did Josh and Oliver.

[BillsVet]

20 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

I was pretty down on Coleman as a 1st or 2nd round prospect.   I'd been following his game since he hit the transfer portal after 2022.   I wanted the Bills to pass altogether on him because they don't/didn't need projects.   That said,   I know he has a good deal of potential.   But I just don't see it being accessible enough early in his career.    As Kollman says in this video........they've compiled a room full of slot receivers.    A washed up version of MVS coming off a 300 yard season despite the most opportunity he's had in his entire career?   That isn't very intriguing either, IMO.

 

I also don't see the development plan for a guy who enters the league with that skill set.  You've compared him to Davante Adams and GB had 2 proven vets ahead of him in his rookie and 2nd seasons allowing him to get up to speed by year 3.  

 

Among Buffalo's WR group they have 1 guy who's ever had consistent production at the NFL level who isn't declining in Samuel...who in the last 4 seasons has ranked on average about 45th in catches and 55th in yards.    

 

Not seeing how they set up Coleman for success.  Of course, it would take serious investment at WR and this regime isn't willing to do that.  The Bills just seem enamored of their draft assessment on Coleman and expect him to step in and produce.  Or, they don't believe they need the production because they'll move the ball in other ways.     

 

Edited June 21 by BillsVet