JerseyBills Posted August 16 Author Share Posted August 16 6 hours ago, first_and_ten said: We will look back and regret not giving Josh Allen a great offensive mind as head coach. He's being wasted under this head coach. But, hey, at least we get to the playoffs just to watch McD's defenses get roasted. That's Better than the drought years, right? Or do we want a championship? Not getting one under McD. This is an interesting take, but the O has showed up in the playoffs, Just last year our 24 points, with 2 missed FGs and 1 missed TD (Diggs) and a at least a FG attempt (Sherfield) , Bills put up more points than anyone else against KC in the postseason. Should've put up 30+ Our D last year and 13 seconds were to blame by far This is a valid question and point but when a team is literally a play or 2 away from advancing, ya it's on the coach but also just flat out bad luck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 48 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said: Last season, Shakir and Kincaid were not the "top weapons" - not schematically. The passing game tended to revolve around Diggs. I expect their targets and production will go up this year. And if that doesn't happen, we're in trouble. YOU said they were the Bills best receivers at the end of the season. It was an intentionally open-ended, vague statement. Maybe because it makes you feel better to have SOME kind of rationale. There have been lot's of those statements in this thread as people like the OP ambitiously rationalize the weapon situation the Bills organization has put Allen in. Perhaps not as obviously ridiculous as the "in aggregate" talk or the "defense's won't know who to cover" hilarity but suspect nonetheless. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 5 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: YOU said they were the Bills best receivers at the end of the season. It was an intentionally open-ended, vague statement. Maybe because it makes you feel better to have SOME kind of rationale. There have been lot's of those statements in this thread as people like the OP ambitiously rationalize the weapon situation the Bills organization has put Allen in. Perhaps not as obviously ridiculous as the "in aggregate" talk or the "defense's won't know who to cover" hilarity but suspect nonetheless. I'm not sure where the confusion lies. Yes, as a fan and observer, I thought Shakir and Kincaid were the best receivers on the Bills at the end of last season. And if you look at catch % and separation stats, some of these metrics tell the same story. That doesn't mean Brady ran his offense through them and leaned on them last year as much as he will this year. Obviously, production goes up and down over time. No player stays at the same level of productivity perpetually. I expect their production to go up this year. You don't agree. That's okay. You are right about this: if their productivity does not go up, our passing game is in trouble. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 7 hours ago, first_and_ten said: We will look back and regret not giving Josh Allen a great offensive mind as head coach. He's being wasted under this head coach. But, hey, at least we get to the playoffs just to watch McD's defenses get roasted. That's Better than the drought years, right? Or do we want a championship? Not getting one under McD. I like McD but don't deny this is a concern. Quarterbacks can flourish under defensive-minded HCs. Brady did fine under Belichick. But usually for this to work, the HC needs to find a good OC. McD is on his 4th OC. That's gotta be hard on Josh. Only 1 of the 4 was successful - though the book on Brady is still open. Then again, even Daboll had his shortcomings. McD's problems with OC, and Beane's various shortcomings at offensive roster building, haven't created the ideal environment for Josh to thrive. McD needs to find his offensive Spags. Hopefully, Brady proves to be The Guy. And maybe next year Beane upgrades the WR and OL rooms. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 2 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said: I'm not sure where the confusion lies. Yes, as a fan and observer, I thought Shakir and Kincaid were the best receivers on the Bills at the end of last season. And if you look at catch % and separation stats, some of these metrics tell the same story. That doesn't mean Brady ran his offense through them and leaned on them last year as much as he will this year. Obviously, production goes up and down over time. No player stays at the same level of productivity perpetually. I expect their production to go up this year. You don't agree. That's okay. You are right about this: if their productivity does not go up, our passing game is in trouble. It's not confusion, as I explained, it's intentional vaguery. One of the problems with lumping together Kincaid and Shakir as prospects for massive progression is that they are at opposite ends of the target/productivity spectrum. Kincaid had a lot of targets and didn't do much with them. 9 yards per catch is borderline pathetic for a non-RB receiver. Whereas Shakir had few targets........but was extremely efficient with them. The same rationale doesn't work for both. We can presume that they will have higher bulk numbers but will they lead the Bills receiving weapons to a better season thru the air? Because they entered the offseason knowing they needed to get considerably better around Josh Allen. Somewhere along the line the apologists have lowered the bar to quietly better. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 (edited) 6 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said: Tell that to @hondo in seattle and @NeverOutNick.........who @Dr. Who was responding to and who I agreed with. Hondo said "The best receivers at the end of the season were Kincaid and Shakir and they're both still on the team." Nick gave that an "Amen!" That does NOT say they were the "top options" like you keep falsely saying. It says they were playing better than the others. Playing better than the other guys does NOT mean they were the focal point of Brady’s offense. 6 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said: Again.........too much is made of Shakir and Kincaid's play down the stretch..........Diggs and Davis production underwhelmed..........but Shakir and Kincaid didn't tear it up either. Even in that limited stretch their production didn't resemble what you'd want from a top option. And that was against lesser defender's than they figure to have to face this season. AGAIN...they were NOT the top options last year. 6 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said: 50 and 40 yards per game ain't going to get it done for the top weapons. Again, not our top options last year. What they were last year was the 5th and 3rd options and in THOSE ROLES they put up stats and efficiency that was good to great for their ACTUAL roles. So stop trying to negate that by pretending they were our "top options" last year, because you know they were not...everyone knows that. Edited August 16 by Alphadawg7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said: It's not confusion, as I explained, it's intentional vaguery. One of the problems with lumping together Kincaid and Shakir as prospects for massive progression is that they are at opposite ends of the target/productivity spectrum. Kincaid had a lot of targets and didn't do much with them. 9 yards per catch is borderline pathetic for a non-RB receiver. Whereas Shakir had few targets........but was extremely efficient with them. The same rationale doesn't work for both. We can presume that they will have higher bulk numbers but will they lead the Bills receiving weapons to a better season thru the air? Because they entered the offseason knowing they needed to get considerably better around Josh Allen. Somewhere along the line the apologists have lowered the bar to quietly better. Supposedly, Brady made significant tweaks to the offense. Combining that with the fact that Diggs and Davis are gone, it's not unreasonable to believe that Shakir and Kincaid will be used somewhat differently this year, and produce differently. I wouldn't expect their catches, yards, average depth of target, yards per catch, etc., to be the same. Then again, I don't know what to expect. I wasn't at all impressed with Brady's debut last year. But he's made some confident and interesting remarks about the upcoming year while keeping the specifics close to his vest. Allen, too, seems jazzed by the changes but Allen also seems like the kind of guy who'll enthusiastically support anything his coaches say & do. With a new(ish) OC, new playbook, and new receivers, it's hard to project the upcoming year. But Josh is so talented that I think he can make mediocre wideouts look good. I'd be surprised if he didn't surpass 4,000 yards again. I would not be surprised if surpassed 4,500 despite Diggs' departure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 5 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said: That does NOT say they were the "top options" like you keep falsely saying. It says they were playing better than the others. Playing better than the other guys does NOT mean they were the focal point of Brady’s offense. AGAIN...they were NOT the top options last year. Again, not our top options last year. What they were last year was the 5th and 3rd options and in THOSE ROLES they put up stats and efficiency that was good to great for their ACTUAL roles. So stop trying to negate that by pretending they were our "top options" last year, because you know they were not...everyone knows that. Is that how you’re reading that? Huh, I’m reading it as, “their production was fine for a 3rd or 4th option but will not cut it as lead options. They are going to have to take a step forward.” Obviously the gross numbers will increase for both as volume increases. It’s also beyond reasonable to expect Shakir’s efficiency to drop with that increase in volume. The question is where does the volume/efficiency land? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverOutNick Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 Man this topic is going off the rails. Kincaid and Shakir are the 2 most promising players we have as receiving threats on our roster. Stats be damned, the eye test shows that both are legitimate playmakers that are dependable at creating separation and making life easier for Josh. I love them both and think they both will thrive this year. BUT this doesn’t fix the glaring problem that Beane put us in. He continues to focus most of his draft capital on positions that can easily be had on cheap free agent signings instead. In a draft most were stating was the deepest at WR in years and the biggest glaring hole we had on our roster, he chose to only take one. Teams like the 9ers and packers take multiple chances at WR each year and when they have a Devante Adams or Brandon Ayuick problem it doesn’t matter because they still have a plethora of young cheap options waiting in the wings while we scrape the bottom of the free agent toilet to find guys who can’t catch a 5 yard curl. I love Beane for how he gets this team what it needs most years but his lack of focus in the draft to help out McDs D with rotational D lineman over giving Josh weapons he can grow with is a huge problem 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 7 hours ago, hondo in seattle said: Josh is so talented that I think he can make mediocre wideouts look good. Just another vague rationalization. That hasn't proven to be the case in his career so far. Sherfield, Sharty, Lil' Dummy? Or in Mahomes' career either. MVS, Kadarius Toney, Skyy Moore.......has Mahomes elevated them? No. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 3 hours ago, NeverOutNick said: Man this topic is going off the rails. Kincaid and Shakir are the 2 most promising players we have as receiving threats on our roster. Stats be damned, the eye test shows that both are legitimate playmakers that are dependable at creating separation and making life easier for Josh. I love them both and think they both will thrive this year. BUT this doesn’t fix the glaring problem that Beane put us in. He continues to focus most of his draft capital on positions that can easily be had on cheap free agent signings instead. In a draft most were stating was the deepest at WR in years and the biggest glaring hole we had on our roster, he chose to only take one. Teams like the 9ers and packers take multiple chances at WR each year and when they have a Devante Adams or Brandon Ayuick problem it doesn’t matter because they still have a plethora of young cheap options waiting in the wings while we scrape the bottom of the free agent toilet to find guys who can’t catch a 5 yard curl. I love Beane for how he gets this team what it needs most years but his lack of focus in the draft to help out McDs D with rotational D lineman over giving Josh weapons he can grow with is a huge problem The topic became nuanced.........which is the enemy of vaguery. Nowhere did anyone say Kincaid and Shakir weren't "the 2 most promising players we have as receiving threats". Certainly not me. So you are creating a straw man for no reason. You yourself know that they haven't done as much as they should have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 We have a group of wrs who are fantasy football waiver guys. They have one good week, you pick them up, and drop them the next week. I do like it as a collective group but man, would a legit game breaker (and not MVS, good guy though) change this entire offense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warriorspikes51 Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 Sadly Beane does not value the WR position as much as he should IMO I still wish we'd have taken another WR with a trade up in Round 2 or 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCBills Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 20 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said: We have a group of wrs who are fantasy football waiver guys. They have one good week, you pick them up, and drop them the next week. I do like it as a collective group but man, would a legit game breaker (and not MVS, good guy though) change this entire offense. It sounds like that’s what Kincaid will be. We’ve never had a Kelce-like player so we can’t truly wrap our heads around how that works until we see it. Im not really worried about our WR’s.. we won games while having (names aside) one of the worst WR rooms in the NFL last half of the season. Diggs & Davis were objectively bad. My biggest concern is health.. Shakir & Samuel seem VERY important that we want to do & lack of vertical threats to open up underneath stuff … maybe we do have vertical threats, but in the traditional sense - outside MVS - that true deep threat player isn’t on this roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 6 minutes ago, SCBills said: It sounds like that’s what Kincaid will be. We’ve never had a Kelce-like player so we can’t truly wrap our heads around how that works until we see it. Im not really worried about our WR’s.. we won games while having (names aside) one of the worst WR rooms in the NFL last half of the season. Diggs & Davis were objectively bad. My biggest concern is health.. Shakir & Samuel seem VERY important that we want to do & lack of vertical threats to open up underneath stuff … maybe we do have vertical threats, but in the traditional sense - outside MVS - that true deep threat player isn’t on this roster. Diggs underperformed in the second half but wasn't "objectively bad". Was Kincaid "objectively bad" under Brady because he produced less than Diggs? Because that's the case. And you are predicting Kelce results for Kincaid........which are the greatest ever for a split TE. Just getting a little hyperbolic, I'd say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCBills Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 1 minute ago, BADOLBILZ said: Diggs underperformed in the second half but wasn't "objectively bad". Was Kincaid "objectively bad" under Brady because he produced less than Diggs? Because that's the case. And you are predicting Kelce results for Kincaid........which are the greatest ever for a split TE. Just getting a little hyperbolic, I'd say. We were to the point where we had to manufacture passes to him. He wasn’t organically getting open. Im more going off practice reports, including yesterdays joint practice, where Kincaid comes across as dominating most days & having great chemistry with Allen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avisan Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 12 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: Diggs underperformed in the second half but wasn't "objectively bad". Was Kincaid "objectively bad" under Brady because he produced less than Diggs? Because that's the case. And you are predicting Kelce results for Kincaid........which are the greatest ever for a split TE. Just getting a little hyperbolic, I'd say. Diggs' per-target numbers were brutal on the back stretch. The argument isn't based on volume stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 1 minute ago, SCBills said: We were to the point where we had to manufacture passes to him. He wasn’t organically getting open. Im more going off practice reports, including yesterdays joint practice, where Kincaid comes across as dominating most days & having great chemistry with Allen. I expect big things from Kincaid. But there has only been one Kelce. Not having a player who commands the coverage of CB1's like Sauce, Ramsey and Gonzalez in division allows those teams to be creative with where they put those guys. We saw a "great" split TE in Jimmy Graham be reduced to ineffective when he went to Seattle and defense's put a CB on him instead of him being able to roam against LB and S. Matchups are very important. Kincaid and Shakir may have been more "open" than Diggs.........but they weren't getting blanketed by a CB1 or even a CB2. And being that Kincaid and Shakir will be making most of their grabs in the same area of the field.......not having a difference maker on the boundary creates a matchup problem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorin' Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said: Just another vague rationalization. That hasn't proven to be the case in his career so far. Sherfield, Sharty, Lil' Dummy? Or in Mahomes' career either. MVS, Kadarius Toney, Skyy Moore.......has Mahomes elevated them? No. Josh did elevate Jon Brown and Cole Beasley to career heights. But they both had more production and talent than the three you mention. I think Curtis Samuel is about as productive as Beasley was prior to coming to the Bills, maybe even more so with worse QB play. I could see him having similar numbers to Beasley's best season. I agree that the Bills are missing a true #1 wr, and think that Kincaid can perform at the level of the 1B. Your points on Keon Coleman's development window make sense, he may be that true 1 but not for several seasons. So this year is probably a step back. With the cap saving that Became has carved out, a top tier we should be the target FA next off season... Just for the sake of it, here's the productivity of the Bills top 4 in 2020 (Allen's best passing season): 277 receptions, 3560 yards, 22 TD's Where's the bar on the Bills top 4 this year to legitimately be in contention to win the Super Bowl? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted August 16 Share Posted August 16 1 minute ago, Avisan said: Diggs' per-target numbers were brutal on the back stretch. The argument isn't based on volume stats. If you stretch the truth in both directions it makes the story seem bigger than it is. 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.