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

[Jauronimo]

1 minute ago, Cash said:

 

Agreed.  It's very likely that both:

1.) Shakir will take a step forward as an NFL player this year, and

2.) Shakir's efficiency numbers drop off compared to last year

 

This is regression to the mean - when someone's numbers are that ridiculously high (or low), usually they wind up moving more towards the middle the following year.

Shakir doesn't have enough reps to even establish a baseline.  He will need at least 2 full seasons before we have an idea of what the mean is in terms of his production.  

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Jauronimo said:

Shakir doesn't have enough reps to even establish a baseline.  He will need at least 2 full seasons before we have an idea of what the mean is in terms of his production.  

 

Fair, but we do know his yardage efficiency last year is way off any established NFL baseline. So either we think Shakir is like a generational type prospect or it is realistic to think it falls off some.

[Royale with Cheese]

22 minutes ago, BananaB said:

So the time they fold our D fold more. Got it

 

Or it's because they won the coin toss and they had the ball last?  A special teams blunder gave them another opportunity?

Edited August 15 by Royale with Cheese

[Billl]

18 hours ago, BananaB said:

Fans and media had Lamar MVP because the Ravens won one more game. Seems kind of stupid to me. Ultimate team sport but when it comes to this position it seems there is no room for debate. I totally disagree, part of the reason I don’t watch any of these talking heads. I’m pretty sure if Mahommes was here his career wouldn’t be as successful and if Josh was in KC he’d be even better than he is.  Fact is Andy Reid has gotten the best out of McNabb, Garcia, Vick, Kolb and Smith but these talking ***** heads believe it’s all Mahomes. Kind of simple minded. 

Bills, Ravens, and Bengals homers all disagree on who the best QB in the league is.  They do agree on who the second best QB is, though.

[FireChans]

18 minutes ago, Billl said:

Bills, Ravens, and Bengals homers all disagree on who the best QB in the league is.  They do agree on who the second best QB is, though.

In fairness, I think LJ has a far worse case for best or second best than any of the others. 

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Oh as always you protest too much.   Like I said.........the narrative that they were already the top 2 receivers is wrong.   

 

Neither was producing good "first option" bulk numbers......even over the limited sample size........and we haven't yet seen what they will do with the tougher matchups that guys like Diggs and Davis absorbed for the offense.

 

Important to note.........the objective in Buffalo shouldn't be to get back to the level of offense that they were in 2023.   A team that was one play......like Kadarius Toney lining up offside.....away from missing the playoffs altogether.    A team where one of the OC's had to be fired and the other guided Josh Allen to passing lows he hadn't seen in 5 years.

 

The objective should be to get back to the level of the 2020-2022 offense's and those had a WR1 option that was putting up over 1400 yards per season AND had depth of solid receiving production from guys like Beasley/Sanders/Davis/Knox/Brown.

 

 

 

They weren’t the top 2 receivers, that assessment is wrong.  So your whole premise here is based on their performance when they were NOT the top 2 guys.  
 

So it’s a completely irrelevant statement.  
 

And wrong.  The objective is to reach and win a Super Bowl.  Something those other teams didn’t do.  When was the last time a team won a SB and had a 1400 receiver that season?  And how many SB winning teams had a 1400 yard receiver that year the past 20 years?  Hint…it’s not the number you seem to think it is not is it a prerequisite like many of you think around here.  

Edited August 15 by Alphadawg7

[Royale with Cheese]

3 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

They weren’t the top 2 receivers, that assessment is wrong.  So your whole premise here is based on their performance when they were NOT the top 2 guys.  
 

So it’s a completely irrelevant statement.  
 

And wrong.  The objective is to reach and win a Super Bowl.  Something those other teams didn’t do.  When was the last time a team won a SB and had a 1400 receiver that season?  And how many SB winning teams had a 1400 yard receiver that year?  Hint…it’s not the number you seem to think it is not is it a prerequisite like many of you think around here.  

 

Not sure if this means anything or not but of the top 20 highest paid WR, only 2 has rings and one of the two, Tyreek Hill, has it with a different team.

 

https://overthecap.com/position/wide-receiver

[GoBills808]

15 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Not sure if this means anything or not but of the top 20 highest paid WR, only 2 has rings and one of the two, Tyreek Hill, has it with a different team.

 

https://overthecap.com/position/wide-receiver

and of the top 20 highest paid QBs only 3 have SB rings

 

it doesnt mean anything except there arent a lot of super bowl rings to go around

[Cash]

1 hour ago, Jauronimo said:

Shakir doesn't have enough reps to even establish a baseline.  He will need at least 2 full seasons before we have an idea of what the mean is in terms of his production.  

 

I don't disagree, but it doesn't particularly affect my point.  I believe Shakir led the NFL or was very close to it in a couple efficiency stats.  Even for a young/improving player, it's really rare to lead the league in anything 2 years in a row.  Similar example from the NBA: As a rookie, Jason Tatum shot the highest % of all-time for corner threes.  Did he improve as an overall player in the next couple years?  Absolutely yes.  Did he ever hit that same % for corner threes again?  No, he did not.  And betting on his corner three % to drop from year 1 to year 2 was pretty much a slam dunk.

 

FWIW, I'm expecting Shakir's counting stats to go way up this year, with some dropoff in his efficiency stats.  But I still expect his efficiency stats to look pretty good overall.

[Alphadawg7]

31 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

and of the top 20 highest paid QBs only 3 have SB rings

 

it doesnt mean anything except there arent a lot of super bowl rings to go around

No it means that teams win Super Bowls, not individuals.  

[GoBills808]

Just now, Alphadawg7 said:

No it means that teams win Super Bowls, not individuals.  

no its meaningless

 

if zero of the top 10 highest paid QBs (by far the most important position) have SB rings, what it tells you is that using lack of SB rings amongst highest-paid players to suggest they're not important to winning super bowls is bad analysis

[Royale with Cheese]

37 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

and of the top 20 highest paid QBs only 3 have SB rings

 

it doesnt mean anything except there arent a lot of super bowl rings to go around

 

But those 3 have, one has 3.  So basically it went from Brady to Mahomes.

[MikePJ76]

I like slayton and he is a speed guy that could help here.  If the Bills could move just a fifth for him I would not be against that tbh.

 

 

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

But those 3 have, one has 3.  So basically it went from Brady to Mahomes.

yes, and we could delve deeper into how both contracts were structured to almost ensure they remained underpaid relative to their peers but my point was- using lack of SBs w highest paid wideouts to determine their value is very shallow analysis

[Royale with Cheese]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

yes, and we could delve deeper into how both contracts were structured to almost ensure they remained underpaid relative to their peers but my point was- using lack of SBs w highest paid wideouts to determine their value is very shallow analysis

 

No it's not.  Big Ben, Peyton Manning, Patrick Mahomes and Tom Brady have been in the top 10 in QB's salaries and they made up the majority of the Super Bowls in the AFC in the last 20 years.  You're not seeing that type of ROI from the highest paid WR's in the league.  If they are, let me know...

[Fleezoid]

Why do I get the feeling this thread is starting lose it's luster?

[Mikey152]

Two things:

 

First off..Stefon Diggs is a 31 million dollar dead cap hit this season. In order to eat that AND sign or trade for a proven #1, the Bills would likely have to go without at another position or create future cap/roster issues...and unlike the posters on this board that seem to think that WR is the second most important position in football (when did this happen???), they decided that wasn't wise this season.

 

Second, lets take a look at the Bills 11 personnel options this season and last season...not as a list, but in real, practical terms

 

2024 11 personnel likely has Cook in the backfield, Kincaid at TE, and Shakir, Samuel and Coleman at WR

2023 11 personnel likely has Cook in the backfield, Kincaid at TE, and Diggs, Davis and Shakir at WR

 

On its surface, you'd say Cook is a wash, Kincaid should improve over his rookie season, and swapping in Coleman and Samuel for Diggs and Davis is a huge downgrade...so they got worse. I can easily see how you got there. But lets talk about last year...One of the biggest problems was the offense was too predictable. Davis was almost always on the line and ran like 3 routes. Most of Diggs targets were within 10 yards and he clearly wasn't interested in doing the dirty work when they started losing. Same with Kincaid on the short routes. Shakir was the only one with any kind of surprise to his game, and it's probably why he had the best YPT and YAC by a wide margin. They didn't motion, they didn't really move positions, and they ran a lot of the same concepts over and over. Some of it was the scheme, and some of it was because their players were pretty specialized. It got even worse when Davis got hurt, because nobody could play that role.

 

This season, the receivers might be worse on paper...but they ARE more diverse in both their skill sets and as a group. They are FAR more interchangeable, which allows the offense to have more control over matchups with formation and motion. They all have RAC ability. They all have good ball skills. They probably get a bit more predictable when the backups have to come in, but at least the backups can play on the line and allow the other 2 to remain free to exploit matchups. 

 

I am fully aware that they are missing a proven #1. But all of them are decent sized and athletic. They're all smart. They can all catch. And if called upon, they can all perform as a primary receiver.

 

To say it more simply...You keep saying that Samuel had good numbers because he faced #3 corners. Well, if you have 3 receivers that are basically equal, you can pretty much just throw to the one going up against the worst corner over and over...instead of forcing the ball to your best guy who is going up against a top corner. That is the point. Coleman, Shakir and Samuel won't all face a #1 corner AT THE SAME TIME. Somebody gets #3. And if they all can make plays, maybe the #1 changes from week to week, or even series to series...but the production will be there

 

If you listen to Lafluer talk, this is what the philosophy is in green bay

[GoBills808]

5 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

No it's not.  Big Ben, Peyton Manning, Patrick Mahomes and Tom Brady have been in the top 10 in QB's salaries and they made up the majority of the Super Bowls in the AFC in the last 20 years.  You're not seeing that type of ROI from the highest paid WR's in the league.  If they are, let me know...

so first off im hesitant to agree that ROI=contract size/Superbowls...i think that needs more work

 

secondly- if your point is that signing bigger contracts (outside QB) limits your ability to improve the roster elsewhere the answer is yes, obviously. but singling out WR is pointless if you're trying to argue that it's not an important position. go look at the top 10 or 20 or whatever highest contracts at ANY of the important positions- LT, CB...not a lot of Super Bowl rings there either. that is because there are not a lot of Super Bowl rings to go around

 

what it doesn't mean is that you shouldn't invest at those positions

[Billl]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

In fairness, I think LJ has a far worse case for best or second best than any of the others. 

I don’t think anyone has a case for first or second other than Mahomes and Josh. 

Edited August 15 by Billl

[90sBills]

18 hours ago, BananaB said:

I think Mahomes is a great player, I just think Andy Reids impact on QBs is under looked when people judge Mahomes. 

I think Reid is a great coach. He never got a championship before Mahomes. I think Mahomes impact on Reid getting 3 rings is undervalued.