Mikey152 Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 9 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said: I don't think the Claypool problem comes from Hollis, IMO, Hollis should be easy to overtake. The problem I can see is with K Coleman getting reps over Claypool when Claypool is outplaying Coleman. But the FO wants Coleman in there instead. The lineup/reps would be going to Shakir/C Samuel/and K Coleman. Coleman is the first pick in the draft and the FO is going to want to get him experience even if it comes at the expense of Claypool. That can be tough to take. And Claypool doesn't have a history of handling situations well. Maybe, but McDermott generally doesn’t play rookies unless he has to or they are clearly better, so I think if Claypool wins the spot he wins the spot. IMO, MVS is Claypool insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey152 Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 Just gonna leave this here 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 7 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said: I don't think the Claypool problem comes from Hollis, IMO, Hollis should be easy to overtake. The problem I can see is with K Coleman getting reps over Claypool when Claypool is outplaying Coleman. But the FO wants Coleman in there instead. The lineup/reps would be going to Shakir/C Samuel/and K Coleman. Coleman is the first pick in the draft and the FO is going to want to get him experience even if it comes at the expense of Claypool. That can be tough to take. And Claypool doesn't have a history of handling situations well. Let me clarify...I was saying the initial problem is Hollis, he is who he is directly coming in behind so the first sign of progress would be to move ahead of him. I mean wherever Claypool moves up to it still pushes Hollis down as now you have 4 guys ahead of him in Keon, Shakir, Claypool, and Samuel. So that would make Hollis more of a WR5 which would mean he is probably more of a blocking and ST specialist as anyone that far back probably isn't getting many targets. First thing I will say there is one thing I am supremely confident about is that they aren't going to play Keon just because of his draft status. They have proven that many times now. But I do agree they see him as a big contributor this year and he is coming in as its his job to lose right now vs having someone ahead of him he has to take the job from. But...the guy I think Claypool is competing against to get starter level involvement is more Samuel. With Shakir in the slot and Keon at the X, that leaves Samuel to maybe have to play more outside than he probably should potentially. So I think that is where his best opportunity is, to get on the field more in that outside role opposite Keon and make Samuel more of a swiss army knife that can spell the guys outside and Shakir inside while also taking some snaps in the backfield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanForever19 Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 This thread has long gone off the rails. Look, I'm not saying it's unfair to question how he decided to address the room. Nor am I saying you should blindly support it with zero question as to it succeeding. But this is 60+ pages of largely just that. People wanting to get their receipts in that it surely will fail to claim supremacy that they were right. Or people wanting to get their receipts in to show that they never questioned his decisions to be able to claim supremacy that *they* were right. People on one side arguing with people on the other side, minds made up. Ultimately, the room is what it is. He built this room as best that he could in according to the vision that he had and the assets available to him, navigating the curveball thrown by Diggs. It may succeed. It may fail. We don't know. But arguing back and forth over "woulda, coulda, shoulda's" or blind support is moot. It doesn't change what the makeup of the room is and has no effect on whether it will succeed or fail. Whichever side you land on, you may be right or you may be wrong. But let's stop essentially calling each other idiots and let it play out before we proclaim it a success or a failure. None of us have a Crystal ball. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 1 hour ago, Mikey152 said: Just gonna leave this here Either Diggs legs aged or maybe he was never the get off type of WR? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted July 19 Share Posted July 19 1 hour ago, Mikey152 said: Just gonna leave this here I haven't seen anyone say Curtis Samuel isn't a really good WR3. Standards are high for WR1 and WR2 when you are trying to win a SB. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said: I haven't seen anyone say Curtis Samuel isn't a really good WR3. Standards are high for WR1 and WR2 when you are trying to win a SB. Yeah. Thank God the Chiefs had great ones last year. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 2 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said: This thread has long gone off the rails. Look, I'm not saying it's unfair to question how he decided to address the room. Nor am I saying you should blindly support it with zero question as to it succeeding. But this is 60+ pages of largely just that. People wanting to get their receipts in that it surely will fail to claim supremacy that they were right. Or people wanting to get their receipts in to show that they never questioned his decisions to be able to claim supremacy that *they* were right. People on one side arguing with people on the other side, minds made up. Ultimately, the room is what it is. He built this room as best that he could in according to the vision that he had and the assets available to him, navigating the curveball thrown by Diggs. It may succeed. It may fail. We don't know. But arguing back and forth over "woulda, coulda, shoulda's" or blind support is moot. It doesn't change what the makeup of the room is and has no effect on whether it will succeed or fail. Whichever side you land on, you may be right or you may be wrong. But let's stop essentially calling each other idiots and let it play out before we proclaim it a success or a failure. None of us have a Crystal ball. With due respect, I don't really agree with you. I think it's been a pretty decent discussion, and quite a few good points brought up. There has perhaps been too much redundancy, and the intransigence has been a bit annoying. But, WR is the biggest issue on this team right now, and while you certainly could pare 60 pages down to about fifteen, or so, nobody beats a dead horse like TBD. The funniest thing about this thread is that it started with a basically ridiculous take, that included words like, "...but you can argue he's [MVS] the reason KC won the SB." (I'm as much of a homer as anyone, but c'mon!) Honestly, I wish there were a thread like this for the D-line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LABILLBACKER Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 3 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said: Let me clarify...I was saying the initial problem is Hollis, he is who he is directly coming in behind so the first sign of progress would be to move ahead of him. I mean wherever Claypool moves up to it still pushes Hollis down as now you have 4 guys ahead of him in Keon, Shakir, Claypool, and Samuel. So that would make Hollis more of a WR5 which would mean he is probably more of a blocking and ST specialist as anyone that far back probably isn't getting many targets. First thing I will say there is one thing I am supremely confident about is that they aren't going to play Keon just because of his draft status. They have proven that many times now. But I do agree they see him as a big contributor this year and he is coming in as its his job to lose right now vs having someone ahead of him he has to take the job from. But...the guy I think Claypool is competing against to get starter level involvement is more Samuel. With Shakir in the slot and Keon at the X, that leaves Samuel to maybe have to play more outside than he probably should potentially. So I think that is where his best opportunity is, to get on the field more in that outside role opposite Keon and make Samuel more of a swiss army knife that can spell the guys outside and Shakir inside while also taking some snaps in the backfield. I just think when the dust settles, Claypool will see more targets than MVS & Hollis. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 3 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said: This thread has long gone off the rails. Look, I'm not saying it's unfair to question how he decided to address the room. Nor am I saying you should blindly support it with zero question as to it succeeding. But this is 60+ pages of largely just that. People wanting to get their receipts in that it surely will fail to claim supremacy that they were right. Or people wanting to get their receipts in to show that they never questioned his decisions to be able to claim supremacy that *they* were right. People on one side arguing with people on the other side, minds made up. Ultimately, the room is what it is. He built this room as best that he could in according to the vision that he had and the assets available to him, navigating the curveball thrown by Diggs. It may succeed. It may fail. We don't know. But arguing back and forth over "woulda, coulda, shoulda's" or blind support is moot. It doesn't change what the makeup of the room is and has no effect on whether it will succeed or fail. Whichever side you land on, you may be right or you may be wrong. But let's stop essentially calling each other idiots and let it play out before we proclaim it a success or a failure. None of us have a Crystal ball. Amen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 40 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Yeah. Thank God the Chiefs had great ones last year. They had two players in the top 32 in receiving yards. As they always have under Mahomes. The only year the Bills had that with Allen was by far his best season and the Bills most successful season under McDermott. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Claude Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 (edited) 18 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: They had two players in the top 32 in receiving yards. As they always have under Mahomes. The only year the Bills had that with Allen was by far his best season and the Bills most successful season under McDermott. Pretty selective and intentionally deceptive use of cutoffs here. You can also say the Chiefs had zero receivers in the top 28 in receiving yards. The Chiefs receiving Corp was bad last year. The fact that two receivers barely made the top 32 at 29th and 32nd is a not going to convince folks that they weren't. Edited July 20 by Billy Claude 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 1 hour ago, oldmanfan said: Yeah. Thank God the Chiefs had great ones last year. I don’t think that the Chiefs WRs are great but the effort is there. They drafted one in the first this year. They traded for a guy that was drafted in the first this year. They traded for a guy drafted in the first last year. They drafted WRs in the 2nd last year and the year before. The Chiefs have 5 WRs drafted in the 1st or 2nd. They’ve tried to find high end talent. I’m not counting TEs in this WR discussion. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 3 minutes ago, Billy Claude said: Pretty selective and intentionally deceptive use of cutoffs here. You can also say the Chiefs had zero receivers in the top 28 in receiving yards. How can you say that? One of them was rookie wide receiver Rashee Rice. The other is a first ballot HOF TE who also averages 15 MORE yards per game in the playoffs in his career. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 7 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: I don’t think that the Chiefs WRs are great but the effort is there. They drafted one in the first this year. They traded for a guy that was drafted in the first this year. They traded for a guy drafted in the first last year. They drafted WRs in the 2nd last year and the year before. The Chiefs have 5 WRs drafted in the 1st or 2nd. They’ve tried to find high end talent. I’m not counting TEs in this WR discussion. The Mahomes era Chiefs really BEGAN this idea of loading up the WR room. They made Sammy Watkins one of the highest paid WR in the NFL when they already had two 1,000 yard receiving targets on their roster in Tyreek and Kelce. Watkins didn't live up to his contract during the seasons but was excellent for them in the playoffs and sealed their first SB win by burning Richard Sherman late. They drafted Mecole Hardman in round 2 and basically ran the Bills off the field in the 2020 AFCCG. When they dealt Tyreek they added a deep ball specialist in the un-washed MVS and a young WR in Juju with a 1400 yard season on his record and Juju produced a top 25 receiving yardage season and sealed their 2nd SB win drawing a PI late. The rest you mentioned. They have tried HARD to be great at WR. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 16 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: I don’t think that the Chiefs WRs are great but the effort is there. They drafted one in the first this year. They traded for a guy that was drafted in the first this year. They traded for a guy drafted in the first last year. They drafted WRs in the 2nd last year and the year before. The Chiefs have 5 WRs drafted in the 1st or 2nd. They’ve tried to find high end talent. I’m not counting TEs in this WR discussion. We traded for Samuel. We drafted a guy in the top of round 2 this year. Found a good one in round 4 in Shakir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Claude Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 (edited) 15 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: How can you say that? One of them was rookie wide receiver Rashee Rice. The other is a first ballot HOF TE who also averages 15 MORE yards per game in the playoffs in his career. You highlighted my statement that you can also say they had no receivers in the top 28 in receiving yards. It's a simple fact. Kelce was 29th in receiving yards and Rice was 32nd. You are the one making a big deal of the Chiefs having two receivers in the top 32 in receiving yards not me. Edited July 20 by Billy Claude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 35 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: They had two players in the top 32 in receiving yards. As they always have under Mahomes. The only year the Bills had that with Allen was by far his best season and the Bills most successful season under McDermott. As if that means anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Billy Claude said: You highlighted my statement that you can also say they had no receivers in the top 28 in receiving yards. It's a simple fact. Kelce was 29th in receiving yards and Rice was 32nd. You are the one making a big deal of the Chiefs having two receivers in the top 32 in receiving yards not me. Yeah my bad I didn't notice that you had just randomly changed the number for some reason. Though you should better clarify what you mean by "no receivers in the top 28"..........that's why I said players not "receivers".........because Rashee Rice DID finish 28th among all NFL WR in receiving yards. Rice was, by definition a "WR1" in terms of production. The number 32 is a reference to the fact that there are 32 teams. It's not an arbitrary number. Typically only 4-5 teams end up 2 players in the top 32 in receiving and it is, not coincidentally, always a very good group of teams. Edited July 20 by BADOLBILZ 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanForever19 Posted July 20 Share Posted July 20 44 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: @BillsFanForever19 is one of the homers who wants to shout down the discussion. It's like stages of grief for them. I think they've all tried the same tactics. Make ridiculous statements.........question people's fandom.........question the thread. Idiots gonna' idiot. There are no simple answers on this WR issue. On paper, it's ugly. 1) Could this be the year that they finally have a true breakout star at WR? Coleman? But there has NEVER been one in 6 years with Josh Allen. 2) Is this year that a WR that showed great promise in limited exposure like Shakir is able to do the same as a full time starter? Didn't happen with any of the predecessors. 3) To points 1 and 2.........Everybody who's approached 1,000 yards with Allen had been an 800-1,000 yard receiver elsewhere prior to that in the NFL. 4) Is this the year that a dumpster dive receiver turns his career around with Allen? They are batting .000 on those under Beane. I don't know how you can say that my take that *both* the people who claim almost definitively we're in great shape and will be good *and* the people who claim almost definitively we're in terrible shape and are doomed, before even a single snap of Training Camp has occured, are getting carried away - makes me a homer. I've said each side may be right or wrong. We won't know for sure until we see it. Let's just stop calling each other "idiots". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.