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

[JerseyBills]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Because in football there are high leverage moments time and again when everyone knows what you want to do. And in those moments scheme can only do so much. It comes down to mano vs mano and your guy has to beat theirs. And teams use the sideline as the extra defender and protect with inside leverage so that is where the opportunity is. You have to have the players to take it.

Our trenches are winning those 1 v 1 battles !!! 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Look, there's no one that wanted WR help on this board more than me.

 

But let's call reality reality: it hasn't looked all that bad.

 

[Alphadawg7]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Because in football there are high leverage moments time and again when everyone knows what you want to do. And in those moments scheme can only do so much. It comes down to mano vs mano and your guy has to beat theirs. And teams use the sideline as the extra defender and protect with inside leverage so that is where the opportunity is. You have to have the players to take it.

 

No disrespect, but this just really feels like its being over blown here.  And I already know you are going to hit the disagree button on this, and that is fine, but this may be the single most over focused talking point I have seen on this subject.  It honestly starting to feel like this something some of you want to hold on to because its the lone thing anyone can say we haven't been tested on yet in regards to those who have been more critical of the WR room.  And I do agree, we haven't really been tested in this fashion...but I don't agree that its this end all be all piece of the offense that without it the offense will struggle or fail in big moments.

 

I have watched KC and Pats build 2 dynasties not having that big play sideline guy.  Even when KC had Hill, they predominantly did his damage on short throws across the middle that turned into big plays with YAC than they did just throwing sideline bombs.  And when they did go deep to Hill, it wasn't down the sidelines and almost always over the middle.  

 

Look at the 13 second game...Hill busted that long TD on us to go ahead with just over a minute left in the game on a short crossing route.  Kelce and Hill made plays in those 13 seconds over the middle.  They scored the winning TD on a corner throw to the TE Kelce.  Futhermore, our own attack was Davis catching TD strikes over the middle as well.

 

I am not saying having the ability to win deep along the side line has no value...but you guys talk it up like its going to sink the offense if its not a key part of our offense.  And FWIW, I watched Coleman do just fine on his lone shot down the sideline...I also watched him torch man coverage on his 3rd snap for an easy TD this past week.  So he has at least shown potential to be able to make these plays in those moments.  

 

FWIW:  Josh Allen stats against man coverage are filthy.  

 

 

[Buffalo716]

6 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

No disrespect, but this just really feels like its being over blown here.  And I already know you are going to hit the disagree button on this, and that is fine, but this may be the single most over focused talking point I have seen on this subject.  It honestly starting to feel like this something some of you want to hold on to because its the lone thing anyone can say we haven't been tested on yet in regards to those who have been more critical of the WR room.  And I do agree, we haven't really been tested in this fashion...but I don't agree that its this end all be all piece of the offense that without it the offense will struggle or fail in big moments.

 

I have watched KC and Pats build 2 dynasties not having that big play sideline guy.  Even when KC had Hill, they predominantly did his damage on short throws across the middle that turned into big plays with YAC than they did just throwing sideline bombs.  And when they did go deep to Hill, it wasn't down the sidelines and almost always over the middle.  

 

Look at the 13 second game...Hill busted that long TD on us to go ahead with just over a minute left in the game on a short crossing route.  Kelce and Hill made plays in those 13 seconds over the middle.  They scored the winning TD on a corner throw to the TE Kelce.  Futhermore, our own attack was Davis catching TD strikes over the middle as well.

 

I am not saying having the ability to win deep along the side line has no value...but you guys talk it up like its going to sink the offense if its not a key part of our offense.  And FWIW, I watched Coleman do just fine on his lone shot down the sideline...I also watched him torch man coverage on his 3rd snap for an easy TD this past week.  So he has at least shown potential to be able to make these plays in those moments.  

 

FWIW:  Josh Allen stats against man coverage are filthy.  

 

 

Well you're right on 

 

He's hitting the disagree button lol

Edited Saturday at 08:53 PM by Buffalo716

[HappyDays]

25 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I have watched KC and Pats build 2 dynasties not having that big play sideline guy.  Even when KC had Hill, they predominantly did his damage on short throws across the middle that turned into big plays with YAC than they did just throwing sideline bombs.  And when they did go deep to Hill, it wasn't down the sidelines and almost always over the middle.  

 

It isn't just about the ball being thrown to the sideline, it's about WRs lining up outside and getting open. Tyreek Hill was lining up outside even on those deep middle throws. That is the part of our offense that hasn't had to be tested much yet. I will agree it is easier said than done for a defense to make our offense run through our outside WRs. None of the teams we've faced have forced the issue. Maybe we can just continue totally scheming around it.

[Alphadawg7]

20 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

It isn't just about the ball being thrown to the sideline, it's about WRs lining up outside and getting open. Tyreek Hill was lining up outside even on those deep middle throws. That is the part of our offense that hasn't had to be tested much yet. I will agree it is easier said than done for a defense to make our offense run through our outside WRs. None of the teams we've faced have forced the issue. Maybe we can just continue totally scheming around it.

 

I agree with you on that, but that is not what Gunner is saying and some others who keep very specifically stating winning on the outside, one on one, down the sideline where the defender can use the sideline as another defender.  

 

Again I agree with what you just said here and that is why I said there is more way to win on the "outside" than is being discussed such as using size and positioning (back shoulder throws are one of the hardest plays in the NFL to defend for example), not starting from the outside and still attacking the boundaries, and starting from the outside and attacking the middle.  

 

Where I am saying I feel like an over fixation is occurring is in this very specific example of down the sideline in one on one that keeps getting brought up.  And quite frankly, I personally already trust Coleman is capable of going up and making the catch over a defender in a one on one scenario.   

 

I would rather have a guy who is big, soft hands, with body control and knows how to his body to adjust and go up to get the balls in those one on one deep shots where there is a bigger margin or error of where the QB can put the ball.  As opposed to a guy who is dependent on just burning his defender then relying on the QB to make an accurate pass that doesn't over throw him and does not come up short allowing the defender to erase the separation and turn it back into a contested catch scenario, especially if that WR doesn't have the size and physicality to have the advantage in a contested catch situation.  And you can see the many deep shots to a wide open Diggs last year where Allen sailed the ball and flat out missed him or threw it short and resulted in an incomplete or interception.  

 

In a one on one matchup on the sideline, I personally prefer the big target with soft hands who has a big catch radius on those deep shots more than just a speedster guy more dependent on both beating his man and the QB throwing an accurate strike in order to complete the play.  

 

And while we definitely have not yet seen a lot of it, we have seen 2 plays from Coleman that are promising in this way with his week 1 sideline catch and his crosser TD where he torched his 1 on 1 matchup for his first TD.  We have also seen Shakir make teams pay down the seam, Kincaid make plays this year and last year from the middle out on the boundaries, etc.  Not to mention we have seen MVS get wide open deep twice but Allen just miss him bad.  

 

So while we have not been truly tested much in this manner, I don't think it would be fair to assume we just can't do it either based on some things we have seen so far.  

Edited Saturday at 09:37 PM by Alphadawg7

[folz]

 

I don't think anyone is saying we have a top 5-10 wide receiver room talent-wise based on each individual player. We are saying that this wide receiver room is better than last year's wide receiver room (despite not having that elite #1 wr) and that they are the right type of receivers the Bills needed for the offense that they wanted to run. This is the type of offense that Sean has always wanted (remember the pushing and pulling with Daboll). He finally found an OC who not only agreed with him, but is still able to be creative with that type of offense.

 

And just to note:

Keon is a rookie who has played 3 games with a coach that likes to bring rookies along slowly. Tough to knock him for any lack of production yet. And he'll just get better as the year goes.

 

Curtis Samuel, many people forget that he's been dealing with a turf toe injury for the last month. Last week they started using him more and in that swiss-army knife style that was envisioned. I assume they were bringing him along slowly from the injury as well and we'll see much more of him as this thing goes.

 

Khalil is still just coming on (since mid-season last year) as who he is. So much room still to grow and flourish. He's looked pretty high-end already with just 14 targets. With the way the games have gone thus far, and the way he is playing, I expect his targets will increase. So, trying to project his season stats at this point won't really tell much. And lots of guys have flourished in the league of late who weren't just that traditional, big X-receiver...but more of a position-less guy. Can play X, Y, or slot.

 

Plus, everyone eats. This offense won't produce individual players with monster stats because the ball is spread around. The idea is to scheme different guys into good matchups on each play, so defenses can't just focus on one player alone and try to take him out of the game, therefore stifling the offense.

 

 

In the offseason, I kept saying that if nothing else, this wide receiver room will be bigger, stronger (i.e., will be better at blocking and red zone), but more importantly, will have better hands. It's still too early for any stat to be too meaningful at this point...but I like the trend (and was what I expected).

 

Catch Percentages (top four wide outs by number of targets)

2023                             2024

Diggs 66.9%                Shakir 100%

Davis 55.6%                 Samuel 85.7%

Shakir 87%                   Coleman 71.4%

Sherfield 50%              Hollins 60%

 

Are we one of the most-talented WR rooms in the league right now (individual talent-wise)? No. And I don't think anyone is claiming that. But we certainly are an up-and-coming receiving group...and set of overall skill players. All this talk of the Bills not having talent may look silly down the road a bit. I think Cook, Shakir, Kincaid, and Coleman all look pretty darn talented to me. And the rest of the guys are great complimentary pieces.

 

 

As far as needing an elite #1 wide receiver to win a Super Bowl, I would say that only 4-6 of the last 15 Super Bowl winners had an elite wideout (in the way that some of you are thinking about a #1). The guys I consider elite or fringe-elite are in green. Now, someone could argue for Edelman (but with only three 1,000 yard seasons in an 11-year career and his size and position---he is much more like Khalil than that big #1 elite boundary receiver that most posters are talking about):

 

Here are the #1 and #2 receivers for the last 15 SB winners (year is season, not date of the Super Bowl):

2023 KC: a rookie Rashee Rice and MVS

2022 KC: Ju-Ju Smith-Schuster and MVS

2021 LAR: Cooper Kupp and Van Jefferson

2020 TB: Mike Evans and Chris Godwin

2019 KC: Tyreek Hill and Sammy Watkins

2018 NE: Julian Edelman and Josh Gordon (as a shell of his former self)

2017 Phi: Alshon Jeffery and Nelson Aghalor

2016 NE: Julian Edelman and Chris Hogan

2015 DEN: DeMaryius Thomas and Emmanuel Sanders

2014 NE: Julian Edelman and Brandon LaFell

2013 SEA: Doug Baldwin and Golden Tate

2012 BAL: An old Anquan Boldin (maybe) and Torrey Smith

2011 NYG: Mario Manningham and Hakeem Nicks

2010 GB: Donald Driver (maybe) and Greg Jennings

2009 NO: Marques Colston and Devery Henderen

 

And my gosh, forget about the #1 WRs. Look at that list of number twos. I mean, KC was running with MVS as their #2. He's our #5. And just look at the other guys. I would put our current top four at least on par if not better than 9 or 10 of the last 15 SB winning WR groups. 

      

 

[FireChans]

5 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I agree with all this for the most part, although I wasn’t as down on Higgins coming out as you said you were and was fine drafting him if he would have been our pick even though there were others I preferred.  
 

In terms of the tough decision on Shakir though, I will go on record now and say that IMHO Shakir will not be going anywhere.  Josh and this team love him and he is going to get a second contract IMHO.  In fact, I believe Beane will try and extend him early like he has with others before his price tag gets too high in FA.  

I think they will sign him and overpay if they must. Just not something I would recommend at this juncture.

[Boatdrinks]

2 hours ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said:

Look, there's no one that wanted WR help on this board more than me.

 

But let's call reality reality: it hasn't looked all that bad.

 

No, it certainly hasn’t. We will see if Joe Brady continues to stay a step ahead of our opponents. I have to admit I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the results so far. 

[Alphadawg7]

52 minutes ago, FireChans said:

I think they will sign him and overpay if they must. Just not something I would recommend at this juncture.

I still think Beane will look to a deal earlier to get about more a discount though., but of course it takes two to tango in that regard.  

[Einstein's Dog]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

Sorry that you haven't seen that stat before. The reason it's measured is that (and this goes without saying) QBs are less efficient when throwing the ball beyond their first read. Some are affected more than others of course. For example it's been a known weakness in Tua's game that his efficiency drops off a cliff when forced past his first read. For that reason it's notable that the Bills are the NFL's most efficient offense while being dead last in first read percentage.

 

https://www.fantasypoints.com/nfl/articles/2023/first-read-targets-and-fantasy-football#/

 

Happy this is a made up stat, when quoting something based on subjective conjecuture you should quote who is making it up.  This one isn't even PFF.

 

For instance, what about the situation on Thursdays game where the announcers showed a replay and were commenting on how Rodgers was looking off a safety by looking at one WR and then going to another?

 

The whole design of the play may revolve around Josh looking at one section of the field to see what the Defense is doing and then do an action based on the information gathered.  Very weak basis for a criticism.

[HappyDays]

7 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Happy this is a made up stat, when quoting something based on subjective conjecuture you should quote who is making it up.  This one isn't even PFF.

 

PFF does measure first read throws and beyond first read throws, but I don't have access to that data. It's for premium subscribers only.

[ColoradoBills]

9 minutes ago, Einstein's Dog said:

Happy this is a made up stat, when quoting something based on subjective conjecuture you should quote who is making it up.  This one isn't even PFF.

 

For instance, what about the situation on Thursdays game where the announcers showed a replay and were commenting on how Rodgers was looking off a safety by looking at one WR and then going to another?

 

The whole design of the play may revolve around Josh looking at one section of the field to see what the Defense is doing and then do an action based on the information gathered.  Very weak basis for a criticism.

 

I was going to bring this exact point up, but it is useless if people don't want to see all the possibilities.

Brady did the look-off all the time.

 

I don't need stats like that when I still have 2 functioning eyes.

[NewEra]

4 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

I always appreciated diggs the player

 

Thru 3 games I may have not appreciated the effect to which Diggs the person negatively impacted the offense

 

I just typically don't put as much stock in unquantifiable things like chemistry as I do in talent and production is all

I hear ya-  but I do 💯 know for a fact that clashing personalities and negative attitudes have the ability to ruin chemistry and locker rooms.  
 

I don’t know for a fact what Diggs did or didn’t do to our locker room and offensive personality but it’s looking like he was having a negative effect on our team

4 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Do I think it happens like this all year? Probably not. Is that statistic factually accurate? Yes. Everything else, both good and bad, is speculation. Just because we don’t like it, doesn’t mean it is false. With this garbage Ravens pass defense, I expect us to see these numbers trending up as soon as tomorrow.

A projection based on 1 game and 2 half games isn’t a projection that should be discussed.  Based on that same projection- we’re going to average 37 ppg all season.  A projection not worth a discussion.  It means zilch

[NewEra]

4 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

Having an elite talent on the field can't make a team worse. That doesn't make any sense.

 

Having a headcase loser on the field/in the locker room can make a team worse.

 

Diggs leaving and the offense performing better is not evidence that having elite WRs on the field is worse for an offense.

I didn’t say it did…..you’re putting words in my mouth.

 

read what I said.  I’m not wrong

 

[Kirby Jackson]

4 minutes ago, NewEra said:

A projection based on 1 game and 2 half games isn’t a projection that should be discussed.  Based on that same projection- we’re going to average 37 ppg all season.  A projection not worth a discussion.  It means zilch

We can pick and choose which facts we want to consider to help our narrative. Facts are facts nonetheless.

[NewEra]

13 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

We can pick and choose which facts we want to consider to help our narrative. Facts are facts nonetheless.

Sure we can, but why would you when it’s obviously just useless fluff?  

[3rdand12]

On 9/27/2024 at 11:29 AM, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that this a lot of this conversation. Can the Bills move the ball without elite WRs? Yep. Does that mean that the WRs are good? Nope. Both of those are true.

 

Those of us that have concerns have been, “are the WRs good enough when we need them to be?” The answer is still TBD. The outside WRs should need to contribute this week. We won’t know the answer for some time though. Shakir has been Cole Beasley that can run after the catch. He’s a quality WR. He’s not a number 1 at this point. They don’t have anyone else contributing at all really. The offense has still been quite good. So far though, the WRs remain the weakness of the team (specifically on the boundary). Will it matter? We don’t know yet.

 do you see that you might be hung up on that still. it's a fair take for any of Us.

 

But yea 

 we dont know yet

 

I have mentioned a few times across threads perhaps .

Baltimore is a sincere test for Bills as a Whole Unit.

Go Bills

[Kirby Jackson]

6 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Sure we can, but why would you when it’s obviously just useless fluff?  

Why is it useless fluff? If we believe that this version of the Bills is who they are, why should we expect it to look different moving forward? 

[Royale with Cheese]

This is like the Capulets and the Montagues.