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

[BADOLBILZ]

25 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Harty and Sherfield are guys who never produced much before coming to the Bills.  I didn't understand the Harty signing given his production, injury history and salary.  Sherfield at least was a minimum deal.  But Sanders' last season was with the Bills.  Meaning he had one foot out the door when they signed him.

 

OTOH MVS produced almost 700 yards in 2022 with KC before having his targets halved last year and has been a consistent ~550 yard/season receiver.  They'll get something out of him.  Claypool was producing close to 900 yards with a declining Roethlisberger before (I suppose) bad attitude got him shipped out mid-season in Pgh in 2022 and then again from Chicago in 2023.  Joining a winning team and having a full off-season to digest the playbook should help him contribute.  Hamler is a complete unknown given his injuries and I'm not expecting much from him.  Whether they outproduce their career bests remains to be seen but I fully expect them to significantly outproduce what they did last year.

 

 

Like I said,  no reasonable observer would have been surprised if MVS or Claypool hadn't found a team yet and they ended up spending the season as vets on a practice squad.    

 

And I mean..........if Emmanuel Sanders had "one foot out the door" after producing a near-career-average 52 yards per game prior to joining the Bills.........then what is MVS when coming off a 20 yard per game season last year?   One foot in the grave and another on a banana peel?

[eball]

50 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

1.  Wait-and-see is not an approach.   It's a lack of any opinion whatsoever.   Which is not REALLY the case with you in this post.   You have opinions you just don't want to show a logical basis for it.

 

2. Projecting your 5th target as "likely" to catch 40-50 passes is bold.   That probably suggests that one or more of the most targeted players was injured for a big chunk of the season.    

 

Also,  why would that production tell me that their offense would be fine?   There isn't any necessary correlation there.

 

Wait-and-see is the only reasonable approach for a fan to take.  And predicting good catch numbers for Kincaid and Shakir is hardly pie-in-the-sky thinking.

 

You just hate optimists and think you have to beat everyone down who doesn't immediately bow to your self-lauded superior football intelligence.

 

And when some of us ignore you, you resort to personal attacks.  You have your little puppies BillsVet and Bill from NYC to come running to your defense.  It's hilarious.

 

I've got no time for your nonsense.  I'm sorry we root for the same team.  At least I hate the Yankees.

 

 

[CincyBillsFan]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

OTOH MVS produced almost 700 yards in 2022 with KC before having his targets halved last year and has been a consistent ~550 yard/season receiver.  They'll get something out of him.  Claypool was producing close to 900 yards with a declining Roethlisberger before (I suppose) bad attitude got him shipped out mid-season in Pgh in 2022 and then again from Chicago in 2023.  Joining a winning team and having a full off-season to digest the playbook should help him contribute.  Hamler is a complete unknown given his injuries and I'm not expecting much from him.  Whether they outproduce their career bests remains to be seen but I fully expect them to significantly outproduce what they did last year.

And don't forget Curtis Samuel who over the last two seasons playing for bad QB's on a bad Washington team had a total of 126 receptions for 1269 yards and 8 TD's.  He also rushed for 226 yards with 2 TD's in those two seasons.  Samuel is likely to be very productive in this offense with Allen feeding him the ball.

 

 

[BillsVet]

1 hour ago, Avisan said:

There is a significant difference between the drought years and now in terms of who is throwing the ball and the quality of the defensive unit to fall back on if needed.

 

We ain't comparing the drought years to this.  Little more nuanced than that.  

 

This is about the idea no one can have an opinion, using data or not, before Week 1.  Different eras, same rhetoric.  

[Avisan]

25 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

 

We ain't comparing the drought years to this.  Little more nuanced than that.  

 

This is about the idea no one can have an opinion, using data or not, before Week 1.  Different eras, same rhetoric.  

I am aware of the nuance.  The nuance is why I said what I said.  Being able to assume good QB play and help from the other side of the ball reduces the heroics required from our WR unit and should lead to strong production numbers if our players have NFL-caliber talent, which they do.

[YattaOkasan]

2 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

2. Projecting your 5th target as "likely" to catch 40-50 passes is bold.   That probably suggests that one or more of the most targeted players was injured for a big chunk of the season.    

 

Why is this bold?  Shakir was 5th in targets and receptions and last year and had 39 catches.  Seems pretty intuitive that the 5th receiving option could have 40-50 if the top target isnt getting 160 targets.  

Edited July 16 by YattaOkasan

[FireChans]

6 minutes ago, YattaOkasan said:

Why is this bold?  Shakir was 5th in targets and receptions and last year and had 39 catches.  Seems pretty intuitive that the 5th receiving option could have 40-50 if the top target isnt getting 160 targets.  

Because someone else is getting taken off the field.

 

Shakir had 5 targets through week 6 last year. Week 7 was Knox’s last game before going on IR. Shakir had 2+ targets every game until Knox came back week 14.

 

The math doesn’t work.  The Bills are not gonna successfully rotate in players and target them exclusively when they are on the field.  You are basically saying sub in Coleman on this drive and throw him the ball 4 times then take him off and put in MVS and target him 3 times. 
 

That won’t happen unless someone gets hurt. 

Diggs got a ton of targets and force fed at points. But he also got a ton of targets by virtue of almost always being on the field in passing situations. You can’t do that for WR4-6.

[BillsVet]

46 minutes ago, Avisan said:

I am aware of the nuance.  The nuance is why I said what I said.  Being able to assume good QB play and help from the other side of the ball reduces the heroics required from our WR unit and should lead to strong production numbers if our players have NFL-caliber talent, which they do.

 

This thread has devolved into the ignorant and the aware.  The quibblers and the rational.  The head in the sand types and those with solid vision.  

 

NFL Caliber?  Talk about pure sophistry.  What is that?  How do you define "NFL-caliber"?  Is that a guy on the PS to open the season?  Does that player offer the same potential for "strong production numbers" as say, a guy who had 1,000 yards last year?  

 

This is the mindset of surface-level of analysis that won't go deeper because doing so requires intellect, rational thought, and understanding for how the game is played across the league.  

 

Next year, I can hear it now: Josh begins questioning the team's commitment to putting top-end receiving talent around him.  And McBeane in unison say they already put "NFL-caliber" talent around him.  

 

Oh, sorry.  I'm not allowed to conclude anything before the season begins.  

[Doc]

2 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

Like I said,  no reasonable observer would have been surprised if MVS or Claypool hadn't found a team yet and they ended up spending the season as vets on a practice squad.    

 

And I mean..........if Emmanuel Sanders had "one foot out the door" after producing a near-career-average 52 yards per game prior to joining the Bills.........then what is MVS when coming off a 20 yard per game season last year?   One foot in the grave and another on a banana peel?

 

Great, they might have been on someone's PS.  That doesn't mean they won't produce. I mean it's not like FA was great for WRs.  Not a 1,000 yard receiver in the bunch.

 

And Sanders was talking about retirement before the 2021 season.  While again MVS's drop in production was a target issue.

 

1 hour ago, CincyBillsFan said:

And don't forget Curtis Samuel who over the last two seasons playing for bad QB's on a bad Washington team had a total of 126 receptions for 1269 yards and 8 TD's.  He also rushed for 226 yards with 2 TD's in those two seasons.  Samuel is likely to be very productive in this offense with Allen feeding him the ball.

 

I didn't mention him because BADOL thinks he can have a career year with Josh.

Edited July 16 by Doc

[YattaOkasan]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

Because someone else is getting taken off the field.

 

Shakir had 5 targets through week 6 last year. Week 7 was Knox’s last game before going on IR. Shakir had 2+ targets every game until Knox came back week 14.

 

The math doesn’t work.  The Bills are not gonna successfully rotate in players and target them exclusively when they are on the field.  You are basically saying sub in Coleman on this drive and throw him the ball 4 times then take him off and put in MVS and target him 3 times. 
 

That won’t happen unless someone gets hurt. 

Diggs got a ton of targets and force fed at points. But he also got a ton of targets by virtue of almost always being on the field in passing situations. You can’t do that for WR4-6.

agree someone will come off the field.  

 

Disagree that the math doesnt work.  You make it sound like theyll be on for a drive and then off a drive.  I dont treat this like we did CBs a few years ago .  I would expect a rotation more like DT (just realized how good of analogy this is).  On for a few snaps then rest for a few.  That way everyone will be fresh and running hard every route.  Also not sure why youre talkin about WR4-6, when the discussion is target #5.  Cook was a top 5 target in the passing game last year.  Kincaid is obviously as well.  If there are 2 WR on the field at all times then the top 3 WR can be on for 66% of the time.  That should be enough snaps to get to 50 catches.  

 

More maths.  Target #1 (Kincaid getting 120 targets) Target 2/3 (Samuel/Shakir getting 90 targets), Target 4 (Cook getting 60 which should be 40+) leaves 180 targets for the rest!  Thats with Kincaid getting 30 more targets, Samuel/Cook staying the same, and Shakir doubling his targets.  You dont think target 5 will get enough opportunity to reach 40-50 catches with that many targets left?  How do you spread it around?  Do you think WR4-6 are each getting 20 targets (there were only 5 WR last year and the last two shared 40 targets)?  Does Ray davis steal a ton (he would have to take a lot more than murray's 20 to really impact the distribution. 

 

The Math absolutely works with out injury.  It doesnt without injury if the top target gets 160 targets.  

Edited July 16 by YattaOkasan

[YattaOkasan]

18 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

 

This thread has devolved into the ignorant and the aware.  The quibblers and the rational.  The head in the sand types and those with solid vision.  

 

NFL Caliber?  Talk about pure sophistry.  What is that?  How do you define "NFL-caliber"?  Is that a guy on the PS to open the season?  Does that player offer the same potential for "strong production numbers" as say, a guy who had 1,000 yards last year?  

 

This is the mindset of surface-level of analysis that won't go deeper because doing so requires intellect, rational thought, and understanding for how the game is played across the league.  

 

Next year, I can hear it now: Josh begins questioning the team's commitment to putting top-end receiving talent around him.  And McBeane in unison say they already put "NFL-caliber" talent around him.  

 

Oh, sorry.  I'm not allowed to conclude anything before the season begins.  

It could totally not work.  if we do the Beane question of "how does it fail?", I think we have identified the answer.  Not enough talent.  But I dont think you need to have a 1000 yard receiver to have a top 10 passing game.  GB didnt have anyone above 800 yards and Love was still 7th in yards (some caveats with that analysis).

[Einstein's Dog]

9 hours ago, Rampant Buffalo said:

 

What would make me happy: the Bills pass at least 60% of the time, if not more. Our WR corps is either good this year, or else Beane invests the necessary draft capital to make it good for next year.

 

What would make me sad: the Bills de-prioritize the passing offense. They run the ball at least 50% of the time, as part of, gag, "complimentary football." They draft WRs who are also good run blockers. More resources are devoted to the defense, while the offense is denied any premium players at the WR position.

 

The team's best asset is Josh Allen. Building around that asset would make me happy. Getting away from that asset, and doing other stuff instead, would make me sad.

 

Will I be happy or sad? I don't know yet. Ask me again next year, and I should have a more concrete answer.

I'm with you on hoping the Bills can maintain a pass centric offense that uses Josh's strengths.  But this year the choice of where the limited resources went signals trouble- at least as far as the WR room is concerned.

 

It's starting to look like a choice was made when the FO opted to take J Brady as OC.  This is looking now like it was a Diggs or Brady choice.  Prior to the end of the season I thought Diggs was hurt and Brady was adapting the offense to the personnel.  Now it's starting to look like this is the offense Brady wants to run (with McD/Beane blessings).

 

Of course this can work, but stylistically I envy the path of some of the other franchises.  Callahan in Tenn brought in Ridley and Boyd when he already had DHop and Burks - nice.  True they don't have a franchise QB, but then Philly paid all of Hurts/AJ Brown and D Smith.  SF is going to have to pay Purdy and has Deebo and Aiyuk and drafted WRs in the first and 4th.

[FireChans]

17 minutes ago, YattaOkasan said:

agree someone will come off the field.  

 

Disagree that the math doesnt work.  You make it sound like theyll be on for a drive and then off a drive.  I dont treat this like we did CBs a few years ago .  I would expect a rotation more like DT (just realized how good of analogy this is).  On for a few snaps then rest for a few.  That way everyone will be fresh and running hard every route.  Also not sure why youre talkin about WR4-6, when the discussion is target #5.  Cook was a top 5 target in the passing game last year.  Kincaid is obviously as well.  If there are 2 WR on the field at all times then the top 3 WR can be on for 66% of the time.  That should be enough snaps to get to 50 catches.  

 

More maths.  Target #1 (Kincaid getting 120 targets) Target 2/3 (Samuel/Shakir getting 90 targets), Target 4 (Cook getting 60 which should be 40+) leaves 160 targets for the rest!  Thats with Kincaid getting 30 more targets, Samuel/Cook staying the same, and Shakir doubling his targets.  You dont think target 5 will get enough opportunity to reach 40-50 catches with that many targets left?  How do you spread it around?  Do you think WR4-6 are each getting 20 targets (there were only 5 WR last year and the last two shared 40 targets)?  Does Ray davis steal a ton (he would have to take a lot more than murray's 20 to really impact the distribution. 

 

The Math absolutely works with out injury.  It doesnt without injury if the top target gets 160 targets.  

How are Shakir and Samuel getting 90 targets each? Is Shakir starting on the boundary? Is Dawson Knox not playing?

 

The analogy doesn’t work because when we rotate DT’s or CB’s it’s between 2-3 guys. Not 4-5. 

Edited July 16 by FireChans

[Mikey152]

18 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

I think it's more than possible, it's very likely

 

I'm not arguing that it wasn't the right move, just that it shouldn't be held up as proof of this serious investment in offensive weapons

That's such silly logic...

 

Unless you can definitively say that Worthy or Legette was significantly higher on their board, the idea that they were focused on a position more so than a player says the complete OPPOSITE of what you are saying. They prioritized the position, not a player.

 

If somebody came to you and said "Here are three Iphones...A black one, a white one and a gold one. If you pick your color first, you get no rebate. If you take what is left, you get $200 off" and you took the $200, you might not care about colors but you clearly DO care about phones.

16 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

I supported both the trade back and drafting Coleman. Exactly what happened was literally my dream scenario. Still I do not think WR was sufficiently addressed this offseason. In fact that's two years in a row that the Bills took my draft crush with their first pick. Still I wish they had done more.

 

For me the individual moves are secondary to the larger philosophy. My personal player preferences are just opinions. The idea that the Bills need to overinvest in pass catchers is, to me, a cold hard fact. I would have rather taken Worthy followed by Franklin than just Coleman alone, even though I liked Coleman better than both of those players, because the first scenario would have represented what I KNOW to be a necessary change in the teambuilding philosophy. Instead I fear this regime has learned nothing and is stubbornly continuing to prioritize the wrong positions.

I think they just did it a different way...several new faces at WR that are 28 or less and former high picks.

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, Mikey152 said:

That's such silly logic...

 

Unless you can definitively say that Worthy or Legette was significantly higher on their board, the idea that they were focused on a position more so than a player says the complete OPPOSITE of what you are saying. They prioritized the position, not a player.

 

If somebody came to you and said "Here are three Iphones...A black one, a white one and a gold one. If you pick your color first, you get no rebate. If you take what is left, you get $200 off" and you took the $200, you might not care about colors but you clearly DO care about phones.

😂😂You want to talk to me about silly logic and then say buying phones from some rando shows you care about phones lmfaoo

 

If I cared about phones I'd already have one

[Royale with Cheese]

2 hours ago, eball said:

 

Wait-and-see is the only reasonable approach for a fan to take.  And predicting good catch numbers for Kincaid and Shakir is hardly pie-in-the-sky thinking.

 

You just hate optimists and think you have to beat everyone down who doesn't immediately bow to your self-lauded superior football intelligence.

 

And when some of us ignore you, you resort to personal attacks.  You have your little puppies BillsVet and Bill from NYC to come running to your defense.  It's hilarious.

 

I've got no time for your nonsense.  I'm sorry we root for the same team.  At least I hate the Yankees.

 

 

 

I hear he's a fatty.

Edited July 16 by Royale with Cheese

[Mikey152]

14 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

😂😂You want to talk to me about silly logic and then say buying phones from some rando shows you care about phones lmfaoo

 

If I cared about phones I'd already have one

Fine...you go to the store and go to buy literally anything. There are multiple options that are only different colors of said item. Because of the color, some are more expensive than others.

 

Buying the cheaper one because you don't care about the color doesn't mean you don't care about the thing you bought (or maybe you even prefer the cheaper color)

 

You can laugh all you want, but this is pretty much how every team runs their board. They focus on positions and tiers, not on players. Sure, they might have favorites...but focusing on them and taking them before their grade is amateur hour.

[GoBills808]

7 minutes ago, Mikey152 said:

Fine...you go to the store and go to buy literally anything. There are multiple options that are only different colors of said item. Because of the color, some are more expensive than others.

 

Buying the cheaper one because you don't care about the color doesn't mean you don't care about the thing you bought (or maybe you even prefer the cheaper color)

 

You can laugh all you want, but this is pretty much how every team runs their board. They focus on positions and tiers, not on players. Sure, they might have favorites...but focusing on them and taking them before their grade is amateur hour.

If you insist on this terrible analogy

 

We got a flip phone because the iPhone wasn't in the budget. All that means is you need a cellphone, it doesn't mean youve sufficiently prioritized having a phone

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

Diggs got a ton of targets and force fed at points. But he also got a ton of targets by virtue of almost always being on the field in passing situations. You can’t do that for WR4-6.

 

If I am not mistaken, during the final 10 games, didn't Diggs snap count % kept going down?  

 

I am not 100% on that admittedly, but I feel like someone posted that data here in this thread or another that showed Diggs was actually surprisingly taken out a lot more on passing downs under Brady than he was when Dorsey was the OC and that trend increased throughout the back half of the season.  

 

Again...not totally sure I am remembering that correctly though, but also don't have time to go double check that.  So if anyone else knows for sure or not please chime in.  

[YattaOkasan]

48 minutes ago, FireChans said:

How are Shakir and Samuel getting 90 targets each? Is Shakir starting on the boundary? Is Dawson Knox not playing?

 

The analogy doesn’t work because when we rotate DT’s or CB’s it’s between 2-3 guys. Not 4-5. 

There are 545 targets to go around from last year.  Tell me your distribution then?  I assume its by position X, Y, Z, TE, RB rather than players.  Mine analysis was pretty simple but I think works.  If you really want details on how it can work (again I really dont know if it will cause this is a pretty novel approach) then we would use condensed sets to that "boundary" WR are pretty close to the formation and can still get the free release.  As for Dawson Knox he can easily have some of those 180 targets left over after the first 4 targets.  Give Knox 60 targets (up 66% from last year, so a healthy increase), which would make him option 5 in the passing game and getting to 40-50 catches.  That is the math working.  Again after the first 4 targets in my example there are 160 targets.  Doesnt matter who option 5 is.  With 180 targets left over do you not think the next option will get enough opportunity to get to 40-50 catches.  

 

CBs and DTs have been rotated differently in the past (ones drive per drive the other is more snap to snap).  Why did you combine them?  Its just a framework to think from.  There is some amount of snaps available for WR's.  I think itll be more broadly shared (like DT) and theyll all get plenty of opportunity.  

 

You said the math doesnt work.  I showed you two ways the math DOES work and you ignored.  Do you think Kincaid gets more than 120, does shakir and samuel get more than 90? Does cook get more than 60? Does Josh pass less than 540 times (last years number)?  Do all the other well say 6 options all get 30 targets?  How do you not see the math working (and please use numbers cause its math).  

Edited July 16 by YattaOkasan