I'm really starting to love this WR room. We quietly got better

[PBF81]

5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

It is indeed scoring that matters, we can definitely agree on that.

 

But there's a reason they say it's a field position game. The whole team has a major effect on how much you score, not just the offense. And the whole team has an effect on how much your opponent scores, not just your defense.

 

Yards is the best way to isolate the performance of one unit, and it's not close.

 

Offensive scheme impacts yardage offense? Yeah. A ton. Being more effective at running will make your offense more effective. Less effective running will make your offense less effective. Same with passing. Your scheme is very likely to affect your productivity. It's just that measuring effectiveness by yardage helps you isolate the offense from the rest of the team by a large amount. Same for the defense.

 

But being able to use his own scheme instead of Dorsey's is likely to be helpful, I think. On the other hand, losing Diggs is likely to hurt, but it seems there was some kind of problem that didn't permit him to be productive the last half of the season. Except as a decoy, at which he was still damn effective.

 

Valid points and completely agree on field position.  

 

Red Zone performance is also key, but Cook was essentially worthless in the RZ, in general, not simply in one or the other half of the season.  As to the rushing component, again, no disagreement, but where I step off is in Allen doing all the heavy lifting in that regard.  48 carries for 246 yards, 5.1 ypc, and 7 TDs in the first 10 games.  63 carries for 278 yards, 4.4 ypc, and 8 TDs over the last 7 games.  As Rodney Dangerfield says in Caddy Shack, that's making his money the hard way.  

 

Again, there are some complexities to this, you seem to understand that.  We could discuss this at length and into perpetuity.  LOL  

 

I'm incredibly curious myself which is why I stated in the recent Questionmark/Concerns thread what the O scheme under McBrady will look like.  And those saying that McD isn't influencing Brady's O aren't being honest with themselves.  McD has a philosophy, which he's often and clearly stated as Complimentary Football and which he's even superficially explained.  So obviously Brady's going "get with the program," but the question is whether that plays to Allen's strengths the best, or not;  whether it minimizes the risks of his getting injured, or not;  whether the team as a whole plays better that way, or not, or just Allen.  Cook did not play better under Brady.  For example, under Dorsey Cook logged a rushing 1st-Down on every 3.9 carries.  Under Brady it was 5.3.  That includes one rushing TD under both.  

 

It was Allen that accounted for all but the entirety of the difference in our rushing difference.  A year earlier the same people preaching how that was good were preaching that Allen needs to run less.  That came from the top, McD.  

 

So we'll see.  What, six and a half more weeks 'til our first preseason game.  LOL  

 

 

[eball]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that subtracting Morse, Davis, Diggs and adding Coleman, Claypool and Samuel is a net loss. We keep looking at what they brought in but without what they replaced (thanks @HappyDays for saying it so much more succinctly). 
 

In terms of the guys, Kincaid was a swing at an elite player. He was the first TE off the board that they traded up for. Most thought that he’d be gone by the time that they picked. He was productive as a rookie and showed flashes of potential to be one of the league’s best TEs. We will see what that looks like as the primary pass catcher in year 2. He’s the exception imo.

 

It’s well documented on here that Coleman wasn’t my guy. I am terrified by his lack of separation. Obviously I’m hoping he turns into a good (or hopefully great) player. I just can’t be convinced that he is that and I don’t believe that the Bills think that either (at least that he’s a future number 1). If they felt that he was that guy, they wouldn’t have traded down twice. He was the 8th WR drafted. The Bills probably felt similarly about a bunch of receivers and would take which ever one was left. 
 

The Bills are positioned to get better next offseason for sure. I think that they will need another edge (unless Solomon comes on) and a WR at the top of the depth chart. They don’t need another guy they need “the” guy. Let’s hope that they don’t waste this year because they didn’t do enough at WR.

 

Also: Claypool has a ton of talent and is a waste. My buddy that’s a scout with the Bears told me what a terrible teammate he was. His quote, “we paid him to stay home and got better.” If he keeps his head on straight he can be as good as Davis was. I just think that the odds of that are < 20%.

 

It will be interesting, no doubt.  As usual, the optimists are looking for the silver lining, the pessimists are predicting failure, and the middle-grounders are playing the wait-and-see game.

 

It is going to be extremely important for the Bills to avoid a slow start, and that worries me considering we will have two new starters at safety and an almost entirely new WR room.  I’m expecting the Kincaid/Shakir/Cook show to dominate the game plan early on.

 

 

[PBF81]

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

He's not on the short list of areas we need to improve. Very lucky to have him. But a few mistakes at bad times hurt  in the Chiefs game last year.

 

Agreed.  But consider, if he weren't here, we'd have had a top-5 draft pick this year.  The only reason why we even made it to the playoffs much less won the WC round was because of him.  He can't be superman in every single playoff game.  

 

 

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

In last year's playoff game against the Chiefs, the D was absolutely devastated by injuries, while the offense was healthy and Josh had a decent game but not a great one. Nearly everyone on the field was on that short list last year, but at least most of the defenders were 2nd or even 3rd stringers in as injury replacements. It may not have been a short list, but the offense simply wasn't very effective, and there were two plays by Josh that cost us dearly: that end zone shot when a bit of easy pocket movement leaves Josh an easy throw for seven points and

 

If he'd just stepped to the side to buy some room on that play with around 1:55 left in the 4th where he was lightly bumped on the throw to the end zone, we very likely score an extra seven. Tons of room everywhere else and he didn't step away from Jones pushing Dawkins into him just enough to affect the throw.

 

If he'd just thrown shorter on the play before the missed field goal instead of holding it. Nobody was wide open but Diggs had space and someone else was open short over the middle in position to get close to a 1st.

 

Remember he fumbled it at around 5:30 in the 4th, and we got very lucky with Kincaid recovering it? Just before that he missed Diggs and almost gifted McDuffie a pick six.

 

He sure didn't play badly. Pretty well, overall. But not at the level you expect of Josh in the playoffs.

 

Again, agreed, but again, he cannot be superman in every playoff game, yet, that seems to be the expectation by some.  

 

But that also drives home the point that I've been making, on those occasions where he isn't his normal playoff self, the rest of the team needs to step up.  That has yet to happen in 8 seasons under McD.  It's not happened even once.  

 

 

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

I'm still pissed at the Diggs drop on the long ball, though. Frustrating. Three offensive possessions in the 4th quarter and only a missed FG out of it.

 

Well, there's a long list of people that are frustrated by that.  

 

But again, if we don't let Mahomes hit MVS deep for 32 yards from our 48 to set-up their 4th Q TD, then it's quite likely that we're not frustrated.  

 

MVS, not Kelce, Hill, or anyone else.  

 

 

[Dablitzkrieg]

6 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

Can't speak for you, of course, but it seems like most Bills fans and NFL commentators, in general, felt like the Bills in the draft needed a magical blue-chip boundary DEEP threat, and instead they traded those two most realistic, sought-after targets to the Chiefs (Worthy) and then the Panthers (Legette), before selecting Coleman. Feels like if they'd nabbed either Worthy or Legette that the vibes would be much more positive overall. Or even if they'd traded SO many 1st and 2nd day picks for the rights to Brian Thomas, Jr. The public sentiment called for a rigid, even reckless, pursuit of prospects based on 40 times, to be reductive. 

 

That, and Yards per Route Run, really influenced/narrowed everyone's WR draft expectations. 

 

I'll admit to buying into it. Allen has previously thrived with supposed deep threats on the outside like John Brown and Stefon Diggs and Gabriel Davis (and even Robert Foster to a flawed extent). So Worthy and Franklin and Legette seemed like legitimate threats. Then again, Allen has also NOT thrived with those same supposed deep threats on the outside like Stefon Diggs and Gabriel Davis. So who knows what is most important. Beasley was more valuable in his first 2 seasons than many of us typically admit. Allen absolutely COOKED with a reliable, chain-moving slot guy. So who really knows. Why can't Kincaid be a better Beasley, and why can't the rest of the no-name WR crew do their jobs well and help Josh Allen excel? (Because of past performance, I guess. But even that isn't super damning.) 

I hope I'm wrong 

[Billy Claude]

22 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

Well, here's the thing with that, on one hand we're told that Brady outperformed Dorsey because he changed things up.  On the other hand we're told that he was essentially still running Dorsey's offense.  Can't be both.  

 

As to the Ds, not true.  I use scoring D, not yardage D because scoring is what counts and we're measuring our points scored.  

 

The Chargers' D was awful at 24th, Miami's ranked 22nd and the Pats' 15th.  The Jet D was all beaten up by that point in the season and didn't even resemble their starting D.  Talk about injuries.  

 

Dallas was good but they came to Buffalo flat off of their biggest game of the year vs. Philly whom they beat the Sunday Night prior, while we came into that game as if it was our Super Bowl.  The Eagles' D was worse than the Chargers' D and ranked 30th, and 26th in scoring.  

 

FWIW, the Jet D allowed 19.1 PPG through 9 games.  Then starting with us they allowed 27 or more points in five of their last 8 games.  The only three that they didn't were against anemic offensive teams the Falcons and Pats, and also the Texans.  

 

Keep in mind that we only averaged 19.3 PPG against the Chargers, Miami, and the Pats, two of which nearly beat us save for a D and STs TD in each of those two games.  So many teams worse than us on O scored more than we did against all three of those teams.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am skeptical of Brady but you are undercutting arguments with how one-sided they are.  You can always find a reason to disregard a data point after the fact.  Lets consider the Brady games one by one and make the argument the other way.

 

Jets:  You say the Jets defense was decimated by injuries but what injuries?   10 out of their 11 regular starters started the Bills game and played their normal amount of snaps.  The only starter that was inactive was their slot cornerback Michael Carter and he was a part time starter; Saleh was moving people in and out of that position trying to find the most effective player. He eventually landed on Carter who is a decent player but hardly the linchpin of that defense,

 

The Jets had a lot of injuries but it was the mirror image of the Bills -- most of the injuries were on offense, and outside of Aaron Rodgers, mostly on the offensive line.  The Jets had some bad defensive performances after the Bills game but I feel it was caused by the Bills game.  The Jets knew they had to win the Bills game to have a realistic chance of making the playoffs. IMHO the run of bad defensive performances by the Jets was caused by the defense essentially giving up for a while after the Bills game rather than a lot of defensive injuries.

 

Eagles: The Eagles were a bad defense but the Bills offense still played well.   In the past, the Bills offense have had plenty of bad games against bad offenses.  Brady and the Bills offense should be given credit for a good offensive game (which would the Bills would have been won if they had a better kicker).

 

Chiefs: If you disregard good offensive games because they are playing against bad defenses, you also have to give credit for okay games against very good defenses (2nd ranked by yardage).

 

Cowboys: Brady called a great game against the Cowboys.  Full stop.  Nobody said anything about the Cowboys being emotionally spend from the Eagles game before the Bills game.  If the Bills had played badly, you could have just as well make the argument that the Bills were emotionally spent from the previous week's game against the Chiefs.  Both arguments feel like desperate reaches trying to justify a result after the fact.

 

Chargers and Patriots: The Chargers and Patriots game were just awful offensive performances and the one of the primary reason to question how successful Brady will be.

 

Dolphins: The offense was moving up and down the field at will against the Dolphins for over 487 total yards.  Unfortunately Josh Allen was handing out turnovers like it was Halloween candy (all of them in Miami territory including one on the Miami 5 yard line). Obviously the Dolphins defense was decimated by injuries but you can't just ignore the 487 yards and I don't think you can blame two interceptions and a fumble by Allen all on Brady.

Steelers: The Bills performed masterfully in the first half.  This included 80 yard drives of 8 and 10 plays.   The only reason the Steelers got back in the game was a blocked 48 yard field goal leading to a short field TD before the end of the half.  You can blame that on Bass or you can blame that on McDermott but it certainly wasn't Brady's fault.  In the second half the Bills defensive injuries started piling up and the Bills only had the ball four times but only punted once (td, fg, missed fg, and punt).  Again, the Steelers had a lot of injuries but this game has to count as a plus for Brady.

Chiefs: Again 2nd rank defense in the league.   The Bills offense wasn't great but was ok, given the injuries on defense this was the only game plan that would give the Bills a decent chance of winning.  

 

Like I said I have a lot of sympathy for your skepticism of Brady.

 

(1)  The Bills offense increased by a one play per drive and more than 5 minutes in time of possession under Brady.   This is impressive but how much of this is due to running Allen a lot more.  Is this sustainable? Can Brady do this with Allen running less? Yes, TOP is both an offensive and defensive statistic but surely adding one play per drive and running more contributes substantially to that.

 

(2) Cook had 3 very good games under Brady -- he had over 80 yards receiving against both the Jets and Eagles.  However, he was ineffective once the league's DCs figured out you had to account for him.  Can Brady figure out how to make Cook effective?

 

(3) Brady seems to want to go to the short passing game and the new WR room will almost force it.  This is not playing into Allen's strength nor is it something Allen is particularly good at nor likes to do.  You would think going to a short passing game should increase Allen's completion percentage.  The fact that the completion percentage went down is what I find most troubling.

 

 

Edited June 26 by Billy Claude

[PBF81]

10 minutes ago, Billy Claude said:

 

 

I share skeptical of Brady but you are undercutting arguments with how one-sided they are.  You can always find a reason to disregard a data point after the fact.  Lets consider the Brady games one by one and make the argument the other way.

 

Jets:  You say the Jets defense was decimated by injuries but what injuries?   10 out of their 11 starters started the Bills game and played their normal amount of snaps.  The only starter that was inactive was their slot cornerback Michael Carter and he was a part time starter; Saleh was moving people in and out of that position trying to find the most effective player. He eventually landed on Carter who is a decent player but hardly the linchpin of that defense,

 

The Jets had a lot of injuries but it was the mirror image of the Bills -- most of the injuries were on offense, and outside of Aaron Rodgers, mostly on the offensive line.  The Jets had some bad defensive performances after the Bills game but I feel it was caused by the Bills game.  The Jets knew they had to win the Bills game to have a realistic chance of making the playoffs. IMHO the run of bad defensive performances by the Jets was caused by the defense essentially giving up for a while after the Bills game rather than a lot of defensive injuries.

 

Eagles: The Eagles were a bad defense but the Bills offense still played well.   In the past, the Bills offense have had plenty of bad games against bad offenses.  Brady and the Bills offense should be given credit for a good offensive game (which would the Bills would have been won if they had a better kicker).

 

Chiefs: If you disregard good offensive games because they are playing against bad defenses, you also have to give credit for okay games against very good defenses (2nd ranked by yardage).

 

Cowboys: Brady called a great game against the Cowboys.  Full stop.  Nobody said anything about the Cowboys being emotionally spend from the Eagles game before the Bills game.  If the Bills had played badly, you could have just as well make the argument that the Bills were emotionally spent from the previous week's game against the Chiefs.  Both arguments feel like desperate reaches trying to justify a result after the fact.

 

Chargers and Patriots: The Chargers and Patriots game were just awful offensive performances and the one of the primary reason to question how successful Brady will be.

 

Dolphins: The offense was moving up and down the field at will against the Dolphins for over 487 total yards.  Unfortunately Josh Allen was handing out turnovers like it was Halloween candy (all of them in Miami territory including one on the Miami 5 yard line). Obviously the Dolphins defense was decimated by injuries but you can't just ignore the 487 yards and I don't think you can blame two interceptions and a fumble by Allen all on Brady.

Steelers: The Bills performed masterfully in the first half.  This included 80 yard drives of 8 and 10 plays.   The only reason the Steelers got back in the game was a blocked 48 yard field goal leading to a short field TD before the end of the half.  You can blame that on Bass or you can blame that on McDermott but it certainly wasn't Brady's fault.  In the second half the Bills defensive injuries started piling up and the Bills only had the ball four times but only punted once (td, fg, missed fg, and punt).  Again, the Steelers had a lot of injuries but this game has to count as a plus for Brady.

Chiefs: Again 2nd rank defense in the league.   The Bills offense wasn't great but was ok, given the injuries on defense this was the only game plan that would give the Bills a decent chance of winning.  

 

Like I said I have a lot of sympathy for your skepticism of Brady.

 

(1)  The Bills offense increased by a one play per drive and more than 5 minutes in time of possession under Brady.   This is impressive but how much of this is due to running Allen a lot more.  Is this sustainable? Can Brady do this with Allen running less? Yes, TOP is both an offensive and defensive statistic but surely adding one play per drive and running more contributes substantially to that.

 

(2) Cook had 3 very good games under Brady -- he had over 80 yards receiving against both the Jets and Eagles.  However, he was ineffective once the league's DCs figured out you had to account for him.  Can Brady figure out how to make Cook effective?

 

(3) Brady seems to want to go to the short passing game and the new WR room will almost force it.  This is not playing into Allen's strength nor is it something Allen is particularly good at nor likes to do.  You would think going to a short passing game should increase Allen's completion percentage.  The fact that the completion percentage went down is what I find most troubling.

 

 

 

Great post and thanks for the correction on the Jets!!   

 

It's fair although I would contest a couple of things, and some I've never argued contrarily.  But consider also, that while Brady gets credit for our 6-1 stretch to put us in the playoffs, ... and win the division, coupled with Miami's late season mini collapse, the defense stepped up in spades in those 7 games.  We would have lost the Pats game except for a D TD, and our Miami game was won on the lone play of that PR TD.  

 

Our D allowed 17 or fewer points in four of those seven games.  During our 2-4 losing streak just prior to Brady's takeover, we allowed 17 or fewer points just once, against the Giants, which arguably had the worst offense in the league, ranking 30th in scoring and 29th in yardage.  

 

In those last 7 games our D allowed more than 22 points only once.  In the six games of that prior stretch we allowed 24, 24, 25, and 29 to teams that were, quite frankly, ranking 13th, 22nd, 26th, and 30th in yardage offense and 14th, 16th, 19th, and 31st in scoring.  

 

Had our D continued to play as it did during that 2-4 stretch, we wouldn't have made the playoffs.  Consider, that D TD against the Pats had we not gotten it, takes us out of a division win and puts us at the same 10-7 that got the Steelers the 7th seed, not sure which of us owned that tiebreaker for that 7th seed, but it's incredibly likely that we'd have lost two or three more games had our D not started playing better.  

 

So to your points, there is most certainly also a defensive element that was clearly not present in our 2-4 skid.  We have a habit, perhaps a bad one, of stepping up at key times but letting ourselves down in terms of consistency.  (Dallas in a huge game and the Jets in Brady's debut eg.)  That's a trait that should befall coaching.  It's not a positive, that inconsistency.  

 

 

[BarleyNY]

6 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

Can't speak for you, of course, but it seems like most Bills fans and NFL commentators, in general, felt like the Bills in the draft needed a magical blue-chip boundary DEEP threat, and instead they traded those two most realistic, sought-after targets to the Chiefs (Worthy) and then the Panthers (Legette), before selecting Coleman. Feels like if they'd nabbed either Worthy or Legette that the vibes would be much more positive overall. Or even if they'd traded SO many 1st and 2nd day picks for the rights to Brian Thomas, Jr. The public sentiment called for a rigid, even reckless, pursuit of prospects based on 40 times, to be reductive. 

 

I think this was simply people seeing the need for the Bills to acquire an elite #1 WR to fill the void left by the Diggs trade. That’s why we’ve seen so many (mostly) unrealistic trade scenarios put forth. But unfortunately sometimes what you need and what you can pull off do not align. Prior to the draft, my take was that the two best options were to either make a big trade up for one of the top three wide receivers or to trade back from 28 to acquire more draft capital and still draft a similarly rated WR prospect as could have been had at 28. The former wasn’t feasible so Beane did the next best thing. That seemed like solid process to me. 

 

The decision to trade with KC (and then Carolina), positioning to select Coleman and the actual choice of Coleman can all be debated. I don’t really want to do that here.  But I think the issue most fans had was not so much 40 times as wanting the Bills to acquire a true X WR and the prevailing opinion that Coleman is much better suited to being a Big Slot. So it’s more that some people believe that the bills passed on WR prospects that could have filled that X role for one that might not be well suited to it. 

[Einstein's Dog]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that subtracting Morse, Davis, Diggs and adding Coleman, Claypool and Samuel is a net loss. We keep looking at what they brought in but without what they replaced (thanks @HappyDays for saying it so much more succinctly). 
 

In terms of the guys, Kincaid was a swing at an elite player. He was the first TE off the board that they traded up for. Most thought that he’d be gone by the time that they picked. He was productive as a rookie and showed flashes of potential to be one of the league’s best TEs. We will see what that looks like as the primary pass catcher in year 2. He’s the exception imo.

 

It’s well documented on here that Coleman wasn’t my guy. I am terrified by his lack of separation. Obviously I’m hoping he turns into a good (or hopefully great) player. I just can’t be convinced that he is that and I don’t believe that the Bills think that either (at least that he’s a future number 1). If they felt that he was that guy, they wouldn’t have traded down twice. He was the 8th WR drafted. The Bills probably felt similarly about a bunch of receivers and would take which ever one was left. 
 

The Bills are positioned to get better next offseason for sure. I think that they will need another edge (unless Solomon comes on) and a WR at the top of the depth chart. They don’t need another guy they need “the” guy. Let’s hope that they don’t waste this year because they didn’t do enough at WR.

 

I'm with you.  There is no doubt net investment-wise in offense there was a huge step back.  This is not like other years at all.  Diggs $22 + Davis = approx $25M, C Samuel + K Coleman = approx $11M, and they netted money with getting rid of Morse.

 

I like K Coleman as a player, I think his attitude is great but have a hard time understanding the thought process.  Coleman seems by almost everyone's account to be a young, athletic, raw prospect.  But with the current state of the team we need a pro-ready somewhat immediate player.  From that perspective it made more sense to move out of the first round and get the more pro-ready, lower ceiling player (McConkey) over the high ceiling young player (Coleman).   If they were taking the higher ceiling player why didn't they get the 5th year option?

 

I can only think this WR transformation was vetted by Beane through Pegula/McD/J Brady + Josh.  Expectations have probably been lowered.

 

 

[oldmanfan]

58 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Agreed.  But consider, if he weren't here, we'd have had a top-5 draft pick this year.  The only reason why we even made it to the playoffs much less won the WC round was because of him.  He can't be superman in every single playoff game.  

 

 

 

Again, agreed, but again, he cannot be superman in every playoff game, yet, that seems to be the expectation by some.  

 

But that also drives home the point that I've been making, on those occasions where he isn't his normal playoff self, the rest of the team needs to step up.  That has yet to happen in 8 seasons under McD.  It's not happened even once.  

 

 

 

Well, there's a long list of people that are frustrated by that.  

 

But again, if we don't let Mahomes hit MVS deep for 32 yards from our 48 to set-up their 4th Q TD, then it's quite likely that we're not frustrated.  

 

MVS, not Kelce, Hill, or anyone else.  

 

 

Ahem.  The playoff game against the Ravens with Taron's 102 yard interception.  It's happened even once.

 

Carry on.

[HappyDays]

11 minutes ago, Einstein&#x27;s Dog said:

But with the current state of the team we need a pro-ready somewhat immediate player.  From that perspective it made more sense to move out of the first round and get the more pro-ready, lower ceiling player (McConkey) over the high ceiling young player (Coleman).

 

I think this is two unrelated statements. We needed a pro-ready outside WR, agreed. That doesn't mean you throw out the draft process though. Early draft picks are about picking premium positions with high ceilings. If you start drafting based on who's more ready on day one you've already lost. That's how you end up with Sam Darnold instead of Josh Allen.

 

That being said I also worry about Coleman being ready to be the starting X from day one which is unfortunately somewhat of a necessity because of how little we invested at the position. The fans will judge him too harshly I fear and that will be Beane's fault, not Coleman's.

[PBF81]

37 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Ahem.  The playoff game against the Ravens with Taron's 102 yard interception.  It's happened even once.

 

Carry on.

 

Hence the allowance for that.  

 

On the flip side, Jackson sucks in the playoffs, not as bad as Bledsoe was, but not good.  So it's hardly a feat to keep an offense led by a QB that's had a mere one solid playoff game, this past season, and this past season against a wild-card team with a below-average pass defense.  

 

But otherwise?  Not.  Once in 8 seasons.  

 

 

At the end of the day, the question is what they plan on doing with this collection of receivers.  

 

It's not a typical WR cadre that a team in the modern era would piece together.  Particularly with a QB like Allen.

 

It's going to take some imagination and creativity to get it to work.  

 

The question du jour is whether or not they're up to the task.  

 

 

Edited June 25 by PBF81

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, eball said:

 

It will be interesting, no doubt.  As usual, the optimists are looking for the silver lining, the pessimists are predicting failure, and the middle-grounders are playing the wait-and-see game.

 

It is going to be extremely important for the Bills to avoid a slow start, and that worries me considering we will have two new starters at safety and an almost entirely new WR room.  I’m expecting the Kincaid/Shakir/Cook show to dominate the game plan early on.

 

 

I assume you realize that your outline is the literal definition of optimists, pessimists, and undecided folks. 😉

[JGMcD2]

On 6/23/2024 at 8:52 PM, PBF81 said:

 

Right, and let's ignore the fact that we're now forcing him into a game that thrives on that kind of throwing.  

 

What was that about prowess?  

 

 

“Forcing him into a game that thrives on that kind of throwing?”  
 

And what kind of throwing would “that kind of throwing” be? 
 

Throwing that thrives on being injured and throwing with mechanics compensating for the injury? 

Edited June 25 by JGMcD2

[Mikey152]

I guess I consider myself an optimist when it comes to the Bills. 

 

Specifically regarding the receivers, one of the things I find most interesting is how the goal posts move constantly. Lots of confirmation bias, I guess.

 

Take Coleman and Samuel, for example. Coleman was a first rounder projected to the Bills until two things happened: He ran a poor 40 and reception perception published his separation metrics. After that, he was slow and couldn't separate, so he is trash. It's a take...one I don't agree with, but it is a take.

 

But what I don't get is those same people slamming Curtis Samuel. 4.3 40. One of the best separators in the NFL. He is a Matt Harmon darling...Matt almost lost his mind on his podcast when he heard Samuel was signing here. On top of that, CS had by far his best season as a pro with Brady, He's almost identical to Diggs size-wise, and his contract was super affordable in this WR market. 

 

So help me understand how the same things you use to crush one guy can be completely ignored with another guy?? I think I know the answer...Bills fans wanted a name and didn't get one.

 

Oh, and on a side note...can we kill the narrative about Josh spreading the ball around? The Bills tied the record for most receivers with a TD catch in 2020...arguably Josh's best season statistically. He is perfectly capable of running an offense with diverse targets.

Edited June 25 by Mikey152

[BillsVet]

 

11 hours ago, Beck Water said:

I think you kind of left off "having a starting QB with a sprained throwing shoulder that kept getting re-aggravated".  Josh commented the last couple games he felt like he was throwing pretty well again.  But methinks there's a reason Brady kind of put the passing game on "standby" for the Cowboys and Chargers games.

 

Issue with Brady is that the offense got a lot more pedestrian last season.  It wasn't just that he threw it less than 50% of the time, it's that Josh's yards per attempt went from about 7.2 down to 6.4 from Dorsey to Brady.  People can attribute that to Diggs and Davis not performing, but it's at least as much a result of what they wanted the offense to be and how is was called.  

 

And it's not like the running game got more efficient as a result...yards per attempt went from 4.6 under Dorsey to 4.3 with Brady.  

 

Thing is, I don't believe they see this as an issue, but instead as a solution.  Keep drives going, minimize risk throwing it shorter and running the ball is how they've built the 2024 offense.  Who's dictating that is for another debate, but there's no reason on God's green earth to take Josh and turn him into a game manager while surrounding him with sub-par or so unproven WR/TE talent.  And expecting that more balance will yield better results.   

 

The offense is going to resemble more of what it was in the 2nd half of 2023.  And it will be infuriating. 

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, PBF81 said:

 

Hence the allowance for that.  

 

On the flip side, Jackson sucks in the playoffs, not as bad as Bledsoe was, but not good.  So it's hardly a feat to keep an offense led by a QB that's had a mere one solid playoff game, this past season, and this past season against a wild-card team with a below-average pass defense.  

 

But otherwise?  Not.  Once in 8 seasons.  

 

 

At the end of the day, the question is what they plan on doing with this collection of receivers.  

 

It's not a typical WR cadre that a team in the modern era would piece together.  Particularly with a QB like Allen.

 

It's going to take some imagination and creativity to get it to work.  

 

The question du jour is whether or not they're up to the task.  

 

 

So you say it never happened, not once.

 

But it did.

 

So you’re wrong.

6 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

 

 

Issue with Brady is that the offense got a lot more pedestrian last season.  It wasn't just that he threw it less than 50% of the time, it's that Josh's yards per attempt went from about 7.2 down to 6.4 from Dorsey to Brady.  People can attribute that to Diggs and Davis not performing, but it's at least as much a result of what they wanted the offense to be and how is was called.  

 

And it's not like the running game got more efficient as a result...yards per attempt went from 4.6 under Dorsey to 4.3 with Brady.  

 

Thing is, I don't believe they see this as an issue, but instead as a solution.  Keep drives going, minimize risk throwing it shorter and running the ball is how they've built the 2024 offense.  Who's dictating that is for another debate, but there's no reason on God's green earth to take Josh and turn him into a game manager while surrounding him with sub-par or so unproven WR/TE talent.  And expecting that more balance will yield better results.   

 

The offense is going to resemble more of what it was in the 2nd half of 2023.  And it will be infuriating. 

If they have a similar record to the last half of the year will it be infuriating?  Or do they have to achieve that only with a style of play you approve?

[BillsVet]

16 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

So you say it never happened, not once.

 

But it did.

 

So you’re wrong.

If they have a similar record to the last half of the year will it be infuriating?  Or do they have to achieve that only with a style of play you approve?

 

The offense got worse by becoming slower, less efficient and operated more toward the LOS in the 2nd half of the season.  That will show up this year.      

 

If you can't see how that philosophy which they doubled down on this off-season doesn't present a problem, I'm sorry you can't figure it out.  

 

Besides, assuming what worked just enough last year will work this year is absurd.  Every opponent on the schedule is preparing for them and knows their personnel limitations.  I doubt opposing DC's and HC's are worried about that WR group, which unless you're a blind homer, represents a mediocre group at best. 

[Einstein's Dog]

2 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

I think this is two unrelated statements. We needed a pro-ready outside WR, agreed. That doesn't mean you throw out the draft process though. Early draft picks are about picking premium positions with high ceilings. If you start drafting based on who's more ready on day one you've already lost. That's how you end up with Sam Darnold instead of Josh Allen.

 

That being said I also worry about Coleman being ready to be the starting X from day one which is unfortunately somewhat of a necessity because of how little we invested at the position. The fans will judge him too harshly I fear and that will be Beane's fault, not Coleman's.

I agree that generally the draft is for the future and you shouldn't draft for immediate need, but sometimes they do.  I would have much preferred a large investment into a top tier WR.

 

I also like using the early picks on premium positions with high ceilings.  Hopefully they've done that.  But if you do that you would generally value the 5th year option.  I have difficulty with that little move down - especially when we ended up with extra draft capital for next year (picked up another 4th along the way).  Looked like Carolina valued the 5th year option for Legette.

[Mikey152]

24 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

 

The offense got worse by becoming slower, less efficient and operated more toward the LOS in the 2nd half of the season.  That will show up this year.      

 

If you can't see how that philosophy which they doubled down on this off-season doesn't present a problem, I'm sorry you can't figure it out.  

 

Besides, assuming what worked just enough last year will work this year is absurd.  Every opponent on the schedule is preparing for them and knows their personnel limitations.  I doubt opposing DC's and HC's are worried about that WR group, which unless you're a blind homer, represents a mediocre group at best. 

You're going to have to help me out on this one...

 

What about our current receiver room suggests we got slower, less efficient and more LOS focused?

 

Shakir is the same, Coleman is considerably more athletic than Davis, Samuel is considerably more athletic than Stef, and any combination of Claypool/MVS/Hamler/Hollins destroys last years bottom of the roster in the HWS department. Honestly, Davis was the only guy on the roster that could even play split end last year. Stef is much better off the ball. Now we have at least 3 guys and hopefully 4 (Coleman)

Edited June 25 by Mikey152

[Putin]

On 6/23/2024 at 7:47 AM, JESSEFEFFER said:

Among the players that don't make the cut to 53, the Bills should have some decent practice squad options and it matters because they pull WRs off the practice squad every year.  It's as if Beane made a mental note that signing Beasley and Brown back to the roster were desperation moves of a kind that reflected poorly on his roster planning.   Many of his moves this off-season seem geared toward preparing good players to stash there too. 

Agree 100% !! 
I think this year he’s making sure that we got good debt at every position especially at LB ,