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

[Alphadawg7]

9 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

Well, maybe we should also remember that McDermott traded out of round one to draft Coleman. He traded UP for Elam and Edmunds, this after trading away the Mahomes pick in order to draft a cornerback.

 

Everybody is 100% entitled to his or her opinion, but it is certainly a reach to believe that McDermott does NOT care more about defense than he does about offense, this on a team with the GREAT Josh Allen.

Respectfully disagree.  McD is not the GM for one and two Beane traded up for multiple offensive players including Allen, Kincaid, and Diggs (he gave up our first and a fourth, the equivalent of trading up).  
 

And “trading out of round 1” sounds worse than moving back 1 spot.  The fact it changes rounds doesn’t change the fact it was only 1 spot.  And everyone knew who Carolina was after, the home town Legette, it was the worst kept secret of the draft.  So there was no risk going back one spot.  
 

And as already been discussed many times, and Beane has said so himself, they made a small move back because they had multiple players they liked and were assured they still get one.  It doesn’t mean they don’t prioritize the position or offense.  
 

- 3 of our last 5 drafts our top pick was on a weapon for Allen.  
- 4 of our 6 first and 2nd round picks have been offense the past 3 drafts.

- Since we began to rebuild around Allen in 2019, looking at our first 4 picks of each draft, 15 of the 24 were offense. 
 

No disrespect bud, but I mean what more do you want?  100% focus early all offense each draft and try and find defense only on day 3?

[BobbyC81]

12 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Um, the title of this thread is, “I'm really starting to love this WR room. We quietly got better.” That doesn’t say, “the Bills pass catchers.” We can have a conversation about WRs without including the RBs and TEs (who are both decent). 
 

Of course though, you didn’t go on record with the WR rooms that you think are worse. The numbers don’t support many ranking lower. Even some bad WR rooms have a stud (Pickens and McLaurin). The Bills are in the bottom 3 and I’m sorry that I don’t feel good about that with prime Josh Allen. We should be loading up weapons for him not asking him to carry lesser players. We will win because of Josh Allen. 

I agree 100% on being disappointed with the WR weapons being provided for Josh.  The rookie Williams in Chicago has been provided with DJ Moore, Keenan Allen and Roman Odunze.  Last year’s top rookie in Houston now has Diggs added to the stable of WRs he had.  
 

I know the offense is changing/changed to be more run-focused, but the potential of this crop is similar to what Josh had to work with in his rookie season.  I hope they exceed expectations but right now it’s a concern.

[oldmanfan]

When you get right down to it the only potential downgrade is losing Diggs, and that’s assuming Diggs is the Diggs from the first half of last season vs. the second half.  I don’t think anyone can seriously argue that losing Davis but bringing in Samuel and/or MVS is not, at worst, a wash.  So if Shakir continues his ascent, Samuel does better than Davis, and the other guys contribute the WR position will be OK.  

[Bill from NYC]

13 hours ago, Rocky Landing said:

 When Beane traded with KC, and then Carolina, do you think he looked over to McD to get approval? I don't.

That is great. You are certainly entitled to this opinion. I'm not trying to force you to accept mine. 

 

I will however say that there are examples of coaches having the final say in the draft. Pete Carroll, Belichick, and Parcells come to mind.

 

Tell me, do you think that Beane and McDermott have 100% equal authority to make a draft selection? Obviously this would seem impossible. If one of them does have more power (even if it is 51% - 49%) who would you think could make the final decision?

[GunnerBill]

16 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

When you get right down to it the only potential downgrade is losing Diggs, and that’s assuming Diggs is the Diggs from the first half of last season vs. the second half.  I don’t think anyone can seriously argue that losing Davis but bringing in Samuel and/or MVS is not, at worst, a wash.  So if Shakir continues his ascent, Samuel does better than Davis, and the other guys contribute the WR position will be OK.  

 

The counter argument to that is:

 

1) The passing offense wasn't good enough once Diggs declined last year so even if from the end of last year you consider it "a wash" that isn't really good enough. So you are relying on a team with an elite QB to win by running the ball and playing good defense. I am not against being a team that wants to run the ball and play good defense but that feels a waste when you have Josh Allen. 

 

2) I don't consider Davis to MVS to be a wash. Gabe averages 160 yards and 4 touchdowns a season more than MVS. And MVS has had Rodgers and Mahomes throwing him the ball. That is a downgrade move. Though MVS is at least a true outside receiver. Samuel's production to this point is lower than both but he HAS been hamstrung by Quarterbacks, that's a fair argument and if you exclude the year he got hurt it is very similar to MVS. The problem with that move, which I do think is at worst a wash talent wise, is that he is not a true outside receiver. He is an inside - outside flex guy, not a guy who is a proven boundary receiver. 

 

Personally my best case scenario for the receiving room is Shakir becomes a chain moving weapon from the slot and adds a couple of hundred yards of production, Coleman essentially replaces Gabe as the bigger downfield guy and gets close to his production as a rookie and Samuel is used as a poor man's Stefon Diggs move receiver the way Joe Brady was trying to use Stef at the end of last year. That would give you a serviceable room, but I agree with what someone said earlier... the only route to them being a difference making room is that Keon goes off as a rookie and is already being talked about as a possible top 10 receiver by the end of his first year. That could happen, but the odds are slim IMO.

6 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

That is great. You are certainly entitled to this opinion. I'm not trying to force you to accept mine. 

 

I will however say that there are examples of coaches having the final say in the draft. Pete Carroll, Belichick, and Parcells come to mind.

 

Tell me, do you think that Beane and McDermott have 100% equal authority to make a draft selection? Obviously this would seem impossible. If one of them does have more power (even if it is 51% - 49%) who would you think could make the final decision?

 

Yes, those all had contractual final say. Terry Pegula told you when he hired Brandon Beane that he was in charge of personnel, the draft and the 53. If McDermott had contractual final say we would know about it. He doesn't and those who have been in that building confirm that Beane runs personnel. He has the final say. While McDermott has more power in the organisation, Beane runs personnel. 

[JerseyBills]

4 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

That is great. You are certainly entitled to this opinion. I'm not trying to force you to accept mine. 

 

I will however say that there are examples of coaches having the final say in the draft. Pete Carroll, Belichick, and Parcells come to mind.

 

Tell me, do you think that Beane and McDermott have 100% equal authority to make a draft selection? Obviously this would seem impossible. If one of them does have more power (even if it is 51% - 49%) who would you think could make the final decision?

Beane by far, McD def has input and I'm sure makes it clear what needs he has going into fa/draft but Beane 100% makes the final decision, his scouts and f.o personnel have more say then McD does in the draft

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The counter argument to that is:

 

1) The passing offense wasn't good enough once Diggs declined last year so even if from the end of last year you consider it "a wash" that isn't really good enough. So you are relying on a team with an elite QB to win by running the ball and playing good defense. I am not against being a team that wants to run the ball and play good defense but that feels a waste when you have Josh Allen. 

 

2) I don't consider Davis to MVS to be a wash. Gabe averages 160 yards and 4 touchdowns a season more than MVS. And MVS has had Rodgers and Mahomes throwing him the ball. That is a downgrade move. Though MVS is at least a true outside receiver. Samuel's production to this point is lower than both but he HAS been hamstrung by Quarterbacks, that's a fair argument and if you exclude the year he got hurt it is very similar to MVS. The problem with that move, which I do think is at worst a wash talent wise, is that he is not a true outside receiver. He is an inside - outside flex guy, not a guy who is a proven boundary receiver. 

 

Personally my best case scenario for the receiving room is Shakir becomes a chain moving weapon from the slot and adds a couple of hundred yards of production, Coleman essentially replaces Gabe as the bigger downfield guy and gets close to his production as a rookie and Samuel is used as a poor man's Stefon Diggs move receiver the way Joe Brady was trying to use Stef at the end of last year. That would give you a serviceable room, but I agree with what someone said earlier... the only route to them being a difference making room is that Keon goes off as a rookie and is already being talked about as a possible top 10 receiver by the end of his first year. That could happen, but the odds are slim IMO.

 

Yes, those all had contractual final say. Terry Pegula told you when he hired Brandon Beane that he was in charge of personnel, the draft and the 53. If McDermott had contractual final say we would know about it. He doesn't and those who have been in that building confirm that Beane runs personnel. He has the final say. While McDermott has more power in the organisation, Beane runs personnel. 

Ya but look what happened when Davis didn't play in the most important game , we had to give significant playing time to Harty,Sherfield and Isabella.  

We still should've put up 30+ on a top 2 D and still scored more than any other team in the playoffs/SB. 

I doubt none of them would even make this team, maybe Harty or Sherfield at WR6.

[Bill from NYC]

2 minutes ago, JerseyBills said:

Beane by far, McD def has input and I'm sure makes it clear what needs he has going into fa/draft but Beane 100% makes the final decision, his scouts and f.o personnel have more say then McD does in the draft

I respect your opinion and appreciate the dialogue.

 

That said, what would you say the reason was for Mr. Pegula to hire Beane? Do you think that Mr. Pegula had this vast knowledge of football? 

[JerseyBills]

2 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

I respect your opinion and appreciate the dialogue.

 

That said, what would you say the reason was for Mr. Pegula to hire Beane? Do you think that Mr. Pegula had this vast knowledge of football? 

Of course he had advisors, McDermott being one.

I always thought McD and Beane were a packaged deal. 

[Avisan]

14 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

1) The passing offense wasn't good enough once Diggs declined last year so even if from the end of last year you consider it "a wash" that isn't really good enough.

How are we defining "not good enough," though?

 

I keep asking and so far the answers I've gotten are "Josh Allen threw INTs", "Destroying the Cowboys via the run game means the passing offense was bad", and "Top 10 isn't good enough" which is at least a real answer but is very different from what most other folks seem to fear will be the case this season.

 

I'm especially confused by people who look at our play in the 6-1 stretch against primarily pretty good teams and think that means our team will fail to make the playoffs.

[oldmanfan]

22 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The counter argument to that is:

 

1) The passing offense wasn't good enough once Diggs declined last year so even if from the end of last year you consider it "a wash" that isn't really good enough. So you are relying on a team with an elite QB to win by running the ball and playing good defense. I am not against being a team that wants to run the ball and play good defense but that feels a waste when you have Josh Allen. 

 

2) I don't consider Davis to MVS to be a wash. Gabe averages 160 yards and 4 touchdowns a season more than MVS. And MVS has had Rodgers and Mahomes throwing him the ball. That is a downgrade move. Though MVS is at least a true outside receiver. Samuel's production to this point is lower than both but he HAS been hamstrung by Quarterbacks, that's a fair argument and if you exclude the year he got hurt it is very similar to MVS. The problem with that move, which I do think is at worst a wash talent wise, is that he is not a true outside receiver. He is an inside - outside flex guy, not a guy who is a proven boundary receiver. 

 

Personall

23 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The counter argument to that is:

 

1) The passing offense wasn't good enough once Diggs declined last year so even if from the end of last year you consider it "a wash" that isn't really good enough. So you are relying on a team with an elite QB to win by running the ball and playing good defense. I am not against being a team that wants to run the ball and play good defense but that feels a waste when you have Josh Allen. 

 

2) I don't consider Davis to MVS to be a wash. Gabe averages 160 yards and 4 touchdowns a season more than MVS. And MVS has had Rodgers and Mahomes throwing him the ball. That is a downgrade move. Though MVS is at least a true outside receiver. Samuel's production to this point is lower than both but he HAS been hamstrung by Quarterbacks, that's a fair argument and if you exclude the year he got hurt it is very similar to MVS. The problem with that move, which I do think is at worst a wash talent wise, is that he is not a true outside receiver. He is an inside - outside flex guy, not a guy who is a proven boundary receiver. 

 

Personally my best case scenario for the receiving room is Shakir becomes a chain moving weapon from the slot and adds a couple of hundred yards of production, Coleman essentially replaces Gabe as the bigger downfield guy and gets close to his production as a rookie and Samuel is used as a poor man's Stefon Diggs move receiver the way Joe Brady was trying to use Stef at the end of last year. That would give you a serviceable room, but I agree with what someone said earlier... the only route to them being a difference making room is that Keon goes off as a rookie and is already being talked about as a possible top 10 receiver by the end of his first year. That could happen, but the odds are slim IMO.

 

Yes, those all had contractual final say. Terry Pegula told you when he hired Brandon Beane that he was in charge of personnel, the draft and the 53. If McDermott had contractual final say we would know about it. He doesn't and those who have been in that building confirm that Beane runs personnel. He has the final say. While McDermott has more power in the organisation, Beane runs personnel. 

y my best case scenario for the receiving room is Shakir becomes a chain moving weapon from the slot and adds a couple of hundred yards of production, Coleman essentially replaces Gabe as the bigger downfield guy and gets close to his production as a rookie and Samuel is used as a poor man's Stefon Diggs move receiver the way Joe Brady was trying to use Stef at the end of last year. That would give you a serviceable room, but I agree with what someone said earlier... the only route to them being a difference making room is that Keon goes off as a rookie and is already being talked about as a possible top 10 receiver by the end of his first year. That could happen, but the odds are slim IMO.

 

Yes, those all had contractual final say. Terry Pegula told you when he hired Brandon Beane that he was in charge of personnel, the draft and the 53. If McDermott had contractual final say we would know about it. He doesn't and those who have been in that building confirm that Beane runs personnel. He has the final say. While McDermott has more power in the organisation, Beane runs personnel. 

They drafted a big WR with their first pick this year in Coleman, and added several FAs that, if they can either get through injury history (Hamler) or get their head together (Claypool) would be the equivalent of double dipping in a lower round for a WR, as so many have said they should have done.

 

I suppose Beane could still try and trade for another guy like an Aiyuk or Lamb, but it's hard to see that working with the cap.  The only other thing they could have thought about is trading way up to get one of the top 3 guys, but that would have cost them a lot of capital that was needed for other spots, given the losses for example in the defensive backfield.  I don' t think keeping Diggs was an option for several reasons:  1.  he didn't want to be here; 2.  Josh didn't want him here (I don't think there's any way Diggs gets traded without Josh signing on); 3.  Diggs is on the downside of his career.

 

I have reiterated my view several times that the success of the offense this year lies primarily with Brady and how he structures the offense.  

 

 

[Dillenger4]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

The counter argument to that is:

 

1) The passing offense wasn't good enough once Diggs declined last year so even if from the end of last year you consider it "a wash" that isn't really good enough. So you are relying on a team with an elite QB to win by running the ball and playing good defense. I am not against being a team that wants to run the ball and play good defense but that feels a waste when you have Josh Allen. 

You mean the 6-1, under pressure, fast paced offense that led us to the playoffs? Our passing game "wasn't good enough"???? Brrrr ha ha ha. These sideline fans kill me. Josh was throwing all over teams. Not the long ball but short and intermediate to Kincaid and Shakir and Diggs. We moved the ball with ease at times. Diggs had a LOT of drops in this timeframe, so I assume you are referring to that. But otherwise, our game was mint. Scored over 30 vs KC in the second round playoff game too. Wasn't pretty, but neither is any team. It's called football.

[GunnerBill]

12 minutes ago, Dillenger4 said:

You mean the 6-1, under pressure, fast paced offense that led us to the playoffs? Our passing game "wasn't good enough"???? Brrrr ha ha ha. These sideline fans kill me. Josh was throwing all over teams. Not the long ball but short and intermediate to Kincaid and Shakir and Diggs. We moved the ball with ease at times. Diggs had a LOT of drops in this timeframe, so I assume you are referring to that. But otherwise, our game was mint. Scored over 30 vs KC in the second round playoff game too. Wasn't pretty, but neither is any team. It's called football.

 

Look at our passing production in those games. Sure, we can be a run the ball, play good defense (we were actually playing outstanding defense until the injury bug hit again at Miami and in the wildcard round) and run Josh Allen a ton team if we want to and we will win games that way because we are well coached and have a solid roster. But to maximise this team's ceiling you need to take advantage of how special #17 is as a passer and we weren't doing that to its fullest extent down the stretch. 

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

They drafted a big WR with their first pick this year in Coleman, and added several FAs that, if they can either get through injury history (Hamler) or get their head together (Claypool) would be the equivalent of double dipping in a lower round for a WR, as so many have said they should have done.

 

I suppose Beane could still try and trade for another guy like an Aiyuk or Lamb, but it's hard to see that working with the cap.  The only other thing they could have thought about is trading way up to get one of the top 3 guys, but that would have cost them a lot of capital that was needed for other spots, given the losses for example in the defensive backfield.  I don' t think keeping Diggs was an option for several reasons:  1.  he didn't want to be here; 2.  Josh didn't want him here (I don't think there's any way Diggs gets traded without Josh signing on); 3.  Diggs is on the downside of his career.

 

I have reiterated my view several times that the success of the offense this year lies primarily with Brady and how he structures the offense.  

 

 

 

I'm not super interested in what could / should they have done differently in the spring. Those debates have been had. Nothing we do or say changes it. Pending a stunning trade from left field we are where we are. The question is whether that is going to be good enough. 

[Avisan]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Look at our passing production in those games.

Sure thing!  Top 6 pace overall in net passing yards if you exclude Dallas, top 14 if you want to count a 31-10 running game beatdown of a playoff team as a mark against our offense.

1 hour ago, Avisan said:

 

I keep asking and so far the answers I've gotten are "Josh Allen threw INTs", "Destroying the Cowboys via the run game means the passing offense was bad", and "Top 10 isn't good enough" which is at least a real answer but is very different from what most other folks seem to fear will be the case this season.

We are currently here.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Avisan said:

Sure thing!  Top 6 pace overall in net passing yards if you exclude Dallas, top 14 if you want to count a 31-10 running game beatdown of a playoff team as a mark against our offense.

 

I'm not in the market for a mark against our offense or otherwise. I'm interested in whether the talent we have at wide receiver is sufficient to allow the offense to maximise its potential. I'm not persuaded we do. But we have to be more productive as a passing outfit than we were over the stretch run last year to achieve that in 2024.

[oldmanfan]

38 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Look at our passing production in those games. Sure, we can be a run the ball, play good defense (we were actually playing outstanding defense until the injury bug hit again at Miami and in the wildcard round) and run Josh Allen a ton team if we want to and we will win games that way because we are well coached and have a solid roster. But to maximise this team's ceiling you need to take advantage of how special #17 is as a passer and we weren't doing that to its fullest extent down the stretch. 

 

I'm not super interested in what could / should they have done differently in the spring. Those debates have been had. Nothing we do or say changes it. Pending a stunning trade from left field we are where we are. The question is whether that is going to be good enough. 

I think it will because I think this entire conversation about the WR room, without taking into account other potential weapons, is a bit silly to be honest.  You have a very good young TE in Kincaid and a guy in Knox who has been productive in his career (although his propensity for drops on easy catches drives me crazy).  It would be like having a conversation about the Chiefs receiving ability and leaving out Kelce.  I also think we'll see Cook and Davis involved in the passing game.

 

Again, Brady needs to use his players in a way that maximizes offensive output.  

26 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I'm not in the market for a mark against our offense or otherwise. I'm interested in whether the talent we have at wide receiver is sufficient to allow the offense to maximise its potential. I'm not persuaded we do. But we have to be more productive as a passing outfit than we were over the stretch run last year to achieve that in 2024.

But one of the things I think we did better in the latter half of last season was run the ball.  I suspect we will see a sustained commitment to the run game this year.  That will both save wear and tear on Josh and open up things for the receiving group.

Edited July 22 by oldmanfan

[Avisan]

6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

But we have to be more productive as a passing outfit than we were over the stretch run last year to achieve that in 2024.

Genuine question: why?  Was our passing offense letting us down during the back-7 stretch of last season?  Or were there perhaps games you feel we were not "the better team" but got lucky and won anyway?

[Dillenger4]

42 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Look at our passing production in those games. Sure, we can be a run the ball, play good defense (we were actually playing outstanding defense until the injury bug hit again at Miami and in the wildcard round) and run Josh Allen a ton team if we want to and we will win games that way because we are well coached and have a solid roster. But to maximise this team's ceiling you need to take advantage of how special #17 is as a passer and we weren't doing that to its fullest extent down the stretch. 

 

I'm not super interested in what could / should they have done differently in the spring. Those debates have been had. Nothing we do or say changes it. Pending a stunning trade from left field we are where we are. The question is whether that is going to be good enough. 

Minus a few drops we looked great in the passing game. If we were one dimensional using the run like you suggest, I doubt we win those tight games. Anyway, let's hope we continue to grow our passing game this season as Coleman should be a stud with Josh. I like how we run the ball. I like it a lot! Now with Ty and Ray Davis - LOOK OUT BABY!!!!

[Mikey152]

16 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

There are 32 NFL teams. 1 to 32 where would you say that the Bills WRs rank?Please be specific in the WR rooms that you think are worse. This DOES NOT INCLUDE TES.
 

There are a lot of people in this thread confident in the group but when you compare them to other teams it’s hard to say that they aren’t 30, 31 or 32. It’s impossible to say that they are better than like 27. If they hit on all cylinders this year their ceiling is about 20-22. That’s just not good enough. That’s the frustration.

I understand. The reality is, the falling out with Diggs hurts this season. 31 million and nothing to show for it.

 

So, on it's surface...probably not an ideal WR room. Certainly not looking like a top one without a miracle, at any rate. At the very least, we will need some luck for it to be good and the chances of great are slim. Having said that, I actually think they did a GREAT job under the circumstances. They built a room that could be decent, especially with JA at QB, and somehow managed to pull off more depth than last year despite having one hand tied behind their back. They also did it without mortgaging the future or significantly limiting other parts of the team.

 

Could they go more all in on this season and worry about next year next year? Maybe. I just don't think it would be wise.

 

I don't think ANYBODY here is arguing we have the best WR in the NFL. If anything, what I am struggling with on this thread is that people act like that was ever a realistic possibility. There are actually people that are mad that we didn't trade into the top 10 or spend next years money today to get some name WR demanding a trade that will cost a fortune in $ and picks.

 

So instead of saying we need to have the best receivers in the NFL, how about you tell me what they could have done, realistically, in the last two years that would have made a huge difference to our WR core without gutting the rest of the roster or destroying our cap in the next couple seasons. Everyone wants to talk about how the Chiefs drafted all these WR so they care more than the Bills...but they also traded the best WR in the NFL in his prime instead of signing him to a deal, and they won two super bowls.

[GunnerBill]

43 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Genuine question: why?  Was our passing offense letting us down during the back-7 stretch of last season?  Or were there perhaps games you feel we were not "the better team" but got lucky and won anyway?

 

I felt like we were having to play balls out every single week to get over the line. You do that for 17 weeks including running Josh Allen like a battering ram at times the chances you are fully healthy and fresh for the playoffs are reduced. I think the fact our passing game wasn't close to its optimum level was limiting our margin for error. 

 

Do I think this receiver group and a passing game similar to what we got down the stretch last year could get us to 11 or 12 wins and the post season? Sure I do. Do I think it is likely to be enough to win a Championship? No. And I get the arguments about drops and miscues but those drops and miscues are part of the evaluation whether we like it or not. If they can clean those up that will help but again one of the ways to limit mistakes is with better players and I don't think the room is upgraded. 

[Einstein's Dog]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

They drafted a big WR with their first pick this year in Coleman, and added several FAs that, if they can either get through injury history (Hamler) or get their head together (Claypool) would be the equivalent of double dipping in a lower round for a WR, as so many have said they should have done.

 

I have reiterated my view several times that the success of the offense this year lies primarily with Brady and how he structures the offense.  

 

Claypool + Hamler are nowhere near the same as double dipping.  They are players that were drafted that did not materialize into the players the team that drafted them had hoped for.  They are resurrection projects, not lotto ticket types.

 

Brady's structure of offense is handicapped by the personnel he is given.  It doesn't seem like there is much choice but to continue the dink and dunk, conservative complementary style.  While this may be Brady's preferred style, we won't be able to make a good determination of that based on what he has to work with.