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

[JerseyBills]

21 minutes ago, Mikey152 said:

Here's the point you keep seem to be missing, so I will try one last time then I think it is time to move on from this thread.

 

The best WR aren't always the ones with the best stats, because WR stats are heavily situational. Rashee Rice wasn't the 28th best receiver in the NFL last year...he was just the #1 WR on a team with Andy Reid as a coach and Patrick Mahomes as a QB. There are probably 50 guys in the NFL that could have done as good or better in that situation. I mean, Juju's stats the year before were identical and he is pretty much a JAG at this point.

 

The Bills are gonna throw the ball 500 times, at least. Josh Allen is their QB. So either somebody is gonna catch some passes, or Josh is gonna have a terrible season and we are gonna start to question if he is really the guy.  Honestly, if he needs to be surrounded with probowlers to win and throw for 4000 yards, he isn't the guy I thought he was.

I don't know...Green bay did pretty well with that model. Jordan Love threw for 4100 yards and almost led the league in TDs...their leading receiver had 800 yards.

And GB has 1 of , if not the best young WR trio..

If Coleman is what we expect,  with Shakir and Samuel,  that'd be a helluva trio, plus Kincaid/ Knox and Cook/Davis, as I said in the op , we're not as top heavy losing Diggs but just way deeper and we'll rounded and got exposed in the biggest game with Davis out, trotting out Sherf, Harty and Isabella... 

 

AND STILL put up more points than any team in the playoffs/SB vs KC , including 2 missed TDs and 2 missed FGs, we're fine

[Rocky Landing]

4 hours ago, FireChans said:

Um, yes?

 

Cole Beasley was like the second or third biggest FA WR signed that year.

Literally my point.

[Mikey152]

29 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I’m honestly confused at your point here. 
 

Are you of the contention it doesn’t matter if great QB’s have good weapons or not?

 

The history of the NFL proves that not true.
 

Patrick Mahomes last year had his worst year in the regular season of his career. He has a HoF coach and HoF TE. The TE played worse than his usual standards and the rest of his weapons were horrible and their offense was 16th in points scored. That’s average in the NFL but bad for a Pat Mahomes team. Is he not the guy or were his weapons kinda ass?

 

The 2019 Pats team was devoid of offensive talent. It was Edelman and a bunch of nobodies. They finished 7th in points and 15th in yards. Had the #1 defense in the league. And they got punked in their first playoff game by the Titans. Brady had the lowest TD% of his career and an 88 passer rating. There were real questions if he was done. He went to Tampa and led the 3rd best offense in points to an SB win, posting the 3rd best TD% in his career and a 102 passer rating, his best since 2017. Was Brady not the guy, or were his weapons in NE kinda ass?

Yes, someone is going to produce, because someone has to. But if the weapons are kinda crappy relative to the league, you are going to get a down year from your QB. 
 

I don’t expect Josh to throw for 2900 yards and 18TD’s. That’s impossible for a QB of his caliber.
 

Could I see Josh with sub 30 passing TD’s?

 

Yep.

 

Could I see Josh with his worst passing metrics since 2019?

 

Yep.

 

Could I see the Bills offense be barely in the top half of the league when they have the second best QB in football?

 

Yep. 
 

That’s really what folks struggle to see here. The Chiefs offense last year WASN’T GOOD. They struggled.  They had the hardest path in the playoffs. That’s not the recipe for success.

And yet, they had two receivers in the top 32. So did the titans. Meanwhile, the packers did not. Neither did the Bills. Or 9ers.

 

This isn’t fantasy football. Individual stats don’t always tell the whole picture. I don’t care who does what so long as the team stats look good.

Edited July 20 by Mikey152

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, Mikey152 said:

And yet, they had two receivers in the top 32. So did the titans. Meanwhile, the packers did not. Neither did the Bills. Or 9ers.

Huh?

 

Are we back to TE vs receiver? 

Chiefs had Kelce and Rice in the top 32 (and the rest of their weapons were ass

and they basically started over in their WR room because of it.)

 

Titans had 1, DHOP. (The rest of their weapons were ass and they basically started over in their WR room because of it.)

 

Packers did not have any in the top 32. Their offense was also 12th in the NFL and supports the point. Their #1 WR was a rookie.

 

The Niners had Aiyuk and Kittle in the top 32.

 

The Bills had Diggs in the top 32.

 

So besides being completely incorrect, good point lmao.

[GoBills808]

9 minutes ago, Mikey152 said:

And yet, they had two receivers in the top 32. So did the titans. Meanwhile, the packers did not. Neither did the Bills. Or 9ers.

Wrong

 

The Niners had two guys in aiyuk and Kittle in the top 32 and their third was 36th

 

The Titans only had Hopkins

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Wrong

 

The Niners had two guys in aiyuk and Kittle in the top 32 and their third was 36th

 

The Titans only had Hopkins

We are living in a world where everyone universally agrees Tua and Brock are at best average and get propped up by elite weapons, but some also argue that weapons don’t really matter. Bizarroooooo

Edited July 20 by FireChans

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, FireChans said:

We are living in a world where everyone universally agrees Tua and Brock are at best average and get propped up by elite weapons, but some also argue that weapons don’t really matter. Bizarroooooo

It's truly strange considering we just saw how it negatively affected what's universally considered the best offensive QB/HC in the league

 

But it's not going to happen to us somehow

[FireChans]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

It's truly strange considering we just saw how it negatively affected what's universally considered the best offensive QB/HC in the league

 

But it's not going to happen to us somehow

All we need is Brady to be Andy Reid 2.0 and Kincaid to be Kelce 2.0 and we too can have the 16th best offense in football.

[BADOLBILZ]

33 minutes ago, Mikey152 said:

And yet, they had two receivers in the top 32. So did the titans. Meanwhile, the packers did not. Neither did the Bills. Or 9ers.

 

 

Yep because Rashee Rice emerged into a legit star for the Chiefs down the stretch.    You don't want to know how good he was in the last 2 months of the regular season.   One of the best in the league and after a 6 game stretch of Rice averaging 86 yards per game the Chiefs rested Mahomes, Rice and Kelce in week 17 or they'd have been even further entrenched in the top 32.

 

And then Rice basically caught everything thrown his way in 4 playoff games.  

 

And STILL the Chiefs were the 3rd seed and didn't have great passing numbers in the regular season.

 

But the Bills passing game is likely to be top 5-10 without any weapons like Kelce and Rice were?    That what you are saying? 

Edited July 20 by BADOLBILZ

[Avisan]

The point is that being the primary target on an offense gets you the targets and therefore the production to land in the Top 32.  You can be a pretty average WR and if you are the primary target of an offense with an ounce of competence, you're going to make it in.  If the Bills lack a primary target by offensive design, they may or may not have receivers crack the Top 32 threshold even if they have a productive offense overall.

 

The Bills don't have terrible receivers, and the narrative that they do is frankly bizarre.  They lack a top guy, but everyone expected to make the top 6 cut have the talent to play and be productive in this league.  Most of them have done it before.  Mack Hollins, our expected #5 or #6, had a YPT of 7.34 when targeted almost 100 times on a meh Raiders offense two seasons ago.  We're going to be fine.

 

The most reasonable expectation is for the Bills to be a top 10 offense again.

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, Avisan said:

The point is that being the primary target on an offense gets you the targets and therefore the production to land in the Top 32.  You can be a pretty average WR and if you are the primary target of an offense with an ounce of competence, you're going to make it in.  If the Bills lack a primary target by offensive design, they may or may not have receivers crack the Top 32 threshold even if they have a productive offense overall.

 

The Bills don't have terrible receivers, and the narrative that they do is frankly bizarre.  They lack a top guy, but everyone expected to make the top 6 cut have the talent to play and be productive in this league.  Most of them have done it before.  Mack Hollins, our expected #5 or #6, had a YPT of 7.34 when targeted almost 100 times on a meh Raiders offense two seasons ago.  We're going to be fine.

 

The most reasonable expectation is for the Bills to be a top 10 offense again.

I can't find 5 teams that I'd rather have our WR room

[Avisan]

For those somehow still confused, if you threw to five Mack Hollinses 550 times, you are going to breach 4,000 yards of passing offense.

 

4,037 yards, to be exact, good for 10th overall last season.

Just now, GoBills808 said:

I can't find 5 teams that I'd rather have our WR room

Well, thankfully our offensive production doesn't correlate highly to your personal opinion of our WR room versus that of other teams.

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, Avisan said:

For those somehow still confused, if you threw to five Mack Hollinses 550 times, you are going to breach 4,000 yards of passing offense.

 

4,037 yards, to be exact, good for 10th overall last season.

Well, thankfully our offensive production doesn't correlate highly to your personal opinion of our WR room versus that of other teams.

😂😂And it does yours? Name me the 22 teams that have worse WRs 

[BADOLBILZ]

21 minutes ago, Avisan said:

The point is that being the primary target on an offense gets you the targets and therefore the production to land in the Top 32.  You can be a pretty average WR and if you are the primary target of an offense with an ounce of competence, you're going to make it in.  If the Bills lack a primary target by offensive design, they may or may not have receivers crack the Top 32 threshold even if they have a productive offense overall.

 

The Bills don't have terrible receivers, and the narrative that they do is frankly bizarre.  They lack a top guy, but everyone expected to make the top 6 cut have the talent to play and be productive in this league.  Most of them have done it before.  Mack Hollins, our expected #5 or #6, had a YPT of 7.34 when targeted almost 100 times on a meh Raiders offense two seasons ago.  We're going to be fine.

 

The most reasonable expectation is for the Bills to be a top 10 offense again.

 

1) Wrong.   If the Chiefs had 2 in the top 32 then how does every team's primary target finish in the top 32?   There is no calculus here.   Having multiple top 32's indicates that your offense passing offense is among the very best.

 

2) Why do the Bills receivers have to be "terrible"?    Who is saying that?   There are just A LOT of better WR corps.  

 

3) Now you are backing off from probable top 5-10 passing offense to just "top 10 offense"?    If they lead the league in rushing and rushing TD's and QB rushing TD's they can be top 10 in offense without being a good passing offense.   The Tyrod 2016 Bills were the 7th highest scoring offense and lead the NFL in plays of over 20 yards but they were NOT a good passing offense and weren't a playoff team let alone a contender.

Edited July 20 by BADOLBILZ

[Avisan]

5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

😂😂And it does yours? Name me the 22 teams that have worse WRs 

No, no it doesn't.  I genuinely don't care what other teams have in their WR rooms.  That's our defense's problem, and their track record is extremely good overall outside of facing the Chiefs in the postseason.  Our offense will have 5 out of 6 receivers that have already been productive in the NFL and a round two rookie.  It will have dome frustrating games against good defense without a safety blanket but will still be productive over the course of the season. 

16 minutes ago, Avisan said:

For those somehow still confused, if you threw to five Mack Hollinses 550 times, you are going to breach 4,000 yards of passing offense.

 

4,037 yards, to be exact, good for 10th overall last season.

@BADOLBILZ I literally cannot spell it out any simpler

3 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

1) Wrong.   If the Chiefs had 2 in the top 32 then how does every team's primary target have a top 32?   There is no calculus here.   Having multiple top 32's indicates that your offense passing offense is among the very best.

The Chiefs were not a particularly good passing offense last season but threw the ball a ton despite that and racked up some high volume stats, enough to land two players in the Top 32 due to target quantities.  Thank you for reinforcing the point.

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, Avisan said:

No, no it doesn't.  I genuinely don't care what other teams have in their WR rooms.  That's our defense's problem, and their track record is extremely good overall outside of facing the Chiefs in the postseason.  Our offense will have 5 out of 6 receivers that have already been productive in the NFL and a round two rookie.  It will have dome frustrating games against good defense without a safety blanket but will still be productive over the course of the season. 

@BADOLBILZ I literally cannot spell it out any simpler

If you genuinely don't care about how our WR room stacks up against the rest of the league then why even bother arguing about how productive they're going to be in relation to the rest of the league? You can be happy that we stack up well against your weekend beer league squad but where they relate to the rest of the NFL is the entire point of the discussion.

[Avisan]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

If you genuinely don't care about how our WR room stacks up against the rest of the league then why even bother arguing about how productive they're going to be in relation to the rest of the league? You can be happy that we stack up well against your weekend beer league squad but where they relate to the rest of the NFL is the entire point of the discussion.

I thought the point of this discussion was the Bills' offensive production and overall competency?  We have sufficient tools to be a top 10 passing offense and the numbers support that.  You expect 10th to 15th, which is pretty reasonable if you're pessimistic about elements of the offense.

 

I think your opinion that top 10 isn't good enough is also pretty reasonable, even if I disagree.  The tenor of discourse suggests that the Bills receivers will be awful, though, which doesn't make much sense.  They're likely going to out-produce the majority of the units you would rather have.

4 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

I think you've cleared up whether or not you are intelligent enough to continue to engage in debate with. 

I think we've all cleared that up very nicely, yes.

[FireChans]

19 minutes ago, Avisan said:

I thought the point of this discussion was the Bills' offensive production and overall competency?  We have sufficient tools to be a top 10 passing offense and the numbers support that.  You expect 10th to 15th, which is pretty reasonable if you're pessimistic about elements of the offense.

 

I think your opinion that top 10 isn't good enough is also pretty reasonable, even if I disagree.  The tenor of discourse suggests that the Bills receivers will be awful, though, which doesn't make much sense.  They're likely going to out-produce the majority of the units you would rather have.

I think we've all cleared that up very nicely, yes.

 

31 minutes ago, Avisan said:

No, no it doesn't.  I genuinely don't care what other teams have in their WR rooms.  That's our defense's problem, and their track record is extremely good overall outside of facing the Chiefs in the postseason.  Our offense will have 5 out of 6 receivers that have already been productive in the NFL and a round two rookie.  It will have dome frustrating games against good defense without a safety blanket but will still be productive over the course of the season. 

@BADOLBILZ I literally cannot spell it out any simpler

The Chiefs were not a particularly good passing offense last season but threw the ball a ton despite that and racked up some high volume stats, enough to land two players in the Top 32 due to target quantities.  Thank you for reinforcing the point.

I can’t even. 
 

Using top 10 in the NFL as his benchmark but doesn’t care about comparison amongst the league.

 

Legendary.

 

@GoBills808 you got got buddy.

Edited July 20 by FireChans

[BillsVet]

4 hours ago, Mikey152 said:

Let’s state this all another way.

 

if the Bills don’t have any receivers in the top 32, Josh Allen probably isn’t the quarterback we think he is.

 

if you look at the top 40, the distribution among teams is pretty high.  Most teams have one or two (correlates to targets I posted earlier). Odds are high we have one guy in the top 20 and/or two guys in the top 40 and/or 3 guys in the top 50.

 

if that DOESNT happen, something went horribly wrong, like Josh got hurt.

 

We're going to revisit the bolded above during the season because it's likely to be a point made by others if these receivers live up to their history or first year status.   

 

Amazing that people can make this claim here after what he's proven what he can do as a passer, particularly in 2020 and 2021.  You know, when he had better WRs to throw to.  

[Beck Water]

13 hours ago, JerseyBills said:

True about Claypool, Hamler but they're fighting for WR6 , likely inactive most weeks, as well as an unknown in Shorter. It's not like we're asking these guys to have a big time role unless they make a huge impression in tc

 

Oh, I have no argument against that at all - totally valid points.  But I was responding to @Mikey152, who was countering @Kirby Jackson's points about the amount of resources KC has expended on WR vs. Buffalo by pointing out that the Bills have a lot of 2nd round picks on the roster.

 

What you say is actually part of my counterpoint - it's not the same thing to spend 3 - 2nd round draft picks on WR, a 1st round pick on a RB, and this year another 1st round pick on a WR (trading up), which is what KC has done over the past 6 seasons

 

vs.

 

What the Bills have done, which is to use 2 - 6th round picks, a 4th, 2- 5ths, and finally this year a 2nd, PLUS bring in a bunch of 2nd round picks hoping to resurrect their careers (or have one).  Now it's fair to point out that in this time, the Bills also used a 1st round pick on an TE, as well as a 2nd round and 2 3rd round picks on RB, so it's not as though offensive investment in the top 3 rounds has been AWOL, but until this year, investment in WR certainly was.  

 

Counting a TE as a receiver, the Bills have invested a 1st and 2nd at receiver over the past 6 seasons in the first 3 rounds, VS. KC expending a 1st and 3 2nd round picks.  It's kind of like double the investment.