We don’t have a number 1 WR

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

Elite YAC guys are guys who get an elite amount of YAC. That's Shakir.

Meh. Not to me.

 

part of that is usage. It’s not a coincidence that most YAC eaters live close to the LOS. it’s the same reason folks got all excited that half of Kincaid’s “YAC” abilities because half his yardage was YAC in 2023. When you are making a living on short passes designed to get you 3-4 yards of YAC, that number is going to go up. 
 

Put another way, Brian Thomas Jr’s 562 YAC yards on an average depth of target of 11.4 yards is much more impressive to me than Shakir’s 597 on an ADOT of 5.5.

[NewEra]

43 minutes ago, ganesh said:

The Patriots won many SB without having a true #1 WR.  They believed in "everyone eats" concept and had plays go through Welker, Edelmen, the TEs and the RBs...The current Bills offense eerily seems similar to those SB winning teams...Go Bills !!!

💯 

 

same with the chiefs the last couple years.  They didn’t utilize the slot as much as the pats did but I think Mahomes td passes had an average of something like 2 air yards per pass 

[nedboy7]

If you look at the WR stats on this team it is pretty clear who the #1 WR is.  Doesn't matter if he full-fills the requirements of the fan-base.  Clearly Josh knows who his #1 is. 

[JakeFrommStateFarm]

15 hours ago, msw2112 said:

Typically a #1 is an outside guy and Shakir is a slot guy, so I wouldn't classify him as a #1.  That said, I'm not all that hung up on assigning numbers to wide receivers.  Shakir is a starter and our best wide receiver, regardless of any number that may be assigned to him.  I agree on that.  I also think that this team is more than capable of going all the way with the receiving corps they have.  The next step is on Sunday.

This is pretty much it.

 

When people say number 1 they are talking Julio Jones, Chase or Jefferson. 

 

Maybe that can be Coleman next season

[Augie]

What an original and refreshing topic. 

[Thurman#1]

15 hours ago, mbs said:

Love Shakir, but no. I think this team still needs a better receiver. I think they can win it all, but it is definitely a liability. "Efficient" is nice but it's also pretty close to cope.

 

I think the injuries that have plagued them in the playoffs past have led the organization to prefer excellent but not elite starters and very good depth over elite starters and bad backups, particularly on oline and defense, but it looks like that at skill positions too. Their arguably league top 5-10 players are Dawkins, Brown, Cook, Benford, and Bernard who are, apart from Dawkins, draft picks that are on rookie deals or got locked up at what looks like a great value. Even Dawkins is maybe a bargain.

 

I think that's a strategy, but I gotta believe --hope-- they would break the bank for a Justin Jefferson if they could. (Or Garrett/Crosby. . . please.)

 

 

 

The thing is, we've got a QB on a second contract, a very highly paid QB. I agree with you that that keeping the salary cap squarely in mind when deciding what FAs to bring in is a strategy, one that is sensible in the situation.

 

And one of the best ways teams with that situation cope is by not breaking the bank for a Justin Jefferson type. Not all of them do it that way, but many do, Belichick and the Pats included. TEs are cheaper, so they use TEs. They do fill in with FA WRs if they don't have to pay too much.

 

Maybe you're right that they would break the bank if they could, all things being equal. But all things aren't equal, the salary cap is a factor. And most SB winners and dynasties in the salary cap era have had great QBs and managed to get really good production with good receivers (and sometimes great TEs) and generally avoided breaking the bank at that position, particularly to bring in FAs from other teams. Tyreek is the most recent example of not breaking the bank at WR paying off very well for a team that wins Super Bowls.

 

Oh, and efficient is a lot better than nice. It's what everyone is striving for.

 

I'd guess they'll be striving for upgrades at WR as they always do and should do. But that we won't see any top ten WR salaries unless it's someone they drafted working out spectacularly well.

Edited Saturday at 04:34 PM by Thurman#1

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

12 hours ago, NewEra said:

Spags

Interesting thing about spags is he was the LB coach for that eagles team that lost to the pats in the superbowl and he was one of the players/coaches that openly talked about being sure the pats stole their defensive signals. 

 

the rumor goes he used that against them in those giants Superbowls and Brady couldn’t really tell what was going on 

[Thurman#1]

45 minutes ago, Augie said:

What an original and refreshing topic. 

 

 

Heh heh.

 

 

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

Curtis Samuel is #1.  We actually have a #0 wr too that’s pretty rare 😂

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, FireChans said:

Meh. Not to me.

 

part of that is usage. It’s not a coincidence that most YAC eaters live close to the LOS. it’s the same reason folks got all excited that half of Kincaid’s “YAC” abilities because half his yardage was YAC in 2023. When you are making a living on short passes designed to get you 3-4 yards of YAC, that number is going to go up. 
 

Put another way, Brian Thomas Jr’s 562 YAC yards on an average depth of target of 11.4 yards is much more impressive to me than Shakir’s 597 on an ADOT of 5.5.

 

 

You're trying to pretend that YAC means something other than YAC. There's a reason they call YAC YAC. That being that YAC is YAC.

 

A yard is a yard in football. You get ten of them you've got a first down. A receiver who can take a short pass, a pass putting very little pressure on the QB, and turn it into a really nice gain on the play is wildly valuable to his QB. That's what Shakir does consistently. By being terrific at getting YAC.

 

You personally value one kind of YAC over another? OK, fine, very reasonable. You don't think that Shakir is elite at YAC? That's kinda nuts. He is. YAC is a stat. It's not an opinion-based word. It's real easy to tell who's good at YAC. Look a the YAC list. He might not be good at the kind of YAC you value most. Again, reasonable. But he's elite at YAC.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 04:47 PM by Thurman#1

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

You're trying to pretend that YAC means something other than YAC. There's a reason they call YAC YAC. That being that YAC is YAC.

 

A yard is a yard in football. You get ten of them you've got a first down. A receiver who can take a short pass, a pass putting very little pressure on the QB, and turn it into a really nice gain on the play is wildly valuable to his QB. That's what Shakir does consistently. By being terrific at getting YAC.

 

You personally value one kind of YAC over another? OK, fine, very reasonable. You don't think that Shakir is elite at YAC? That's kinda nuts. He is. YAC is a stat. It's not an opinion-based word. It's real easy to tell who's good at YAC. Look a the YAC list. He might not be good at the kind of YAC you value most. Again, reasonable. But he's elite at YAC.

 

 

Being one of the top players in the accumulation stat of YAC doesn’t make you “elite” at YAC to me.

 

he was near tops of the league in 2024. Achane was higher. I don’t think Achane is an elite YAC guy either. 
 

Rashee was third in YAC in 2023. Very good YAC guy. Not elite to me. 

[dma0034]

Amonra St Brown is the #1 WR for the Lions as a slot. What the Bills need is their version of Jameson Williams. Kind of funny the Bills had MVS here and couldn't figure out how to use him

[Thurman#1]

1 minute ago, FireChans said:

Being one of the top players in the accumulation stat of YAC doesn’t make you “elite” at YAC to me.

 

he was near tops of the league in 2024. Achane was higher. I don’t think Achane is an elite YAC guy either. 
 

Rashee was third in YAC in 2023. Very good YAC guy. Not elite to me. 

 

 

Well, fine. You're not using the term correctly in that case. But that's up to you.

 

YAC is a statistic. It's a number. That's how it was conceived. It's not a subjective term. It just isn't.

 

Again, you want to find out who's good at YAC? All you have to do is ... find out who's good at YAC. There is a list. The good ones are near the top. The bad ones are at the bottom. The elite ones are the top few. Again, it's not a subjective term. You want to value something different, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

At this point we're talking past each other. You value something else. What you are valuing isn't YAC. I think you've got a perfect right to value that more. But what you're valuing more isn't YAC. It's something you're creating in your mind. 

 

The point is made. He's elite at YAC. He's not elite at whatever you're valuing. I think it's reasonable for you to personally value someone like Brian Thomas more, either in general or in terms of some standard you have. But it ain't YAC. There's a list. That's YAC. It's Yards After Catch, an objective value that can be quantified into a number, and is.

 

'Nuff said for me.

 

 

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Well, fine. You're not using the term correctly in that case. But that's up to you.

 

YAC is a statistic. It's a number. That's how it was conceived. It's not a subjective term. It just isn't.

 

Again, you want to find out who's good at YAC? All you have to do is ... find out who's good at YAC. There is a list. The good ones are near the top. The bad ones are at the bottom. The elite ones are the top few. Again, it's not a subjective term. You want to value something different, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

At this point we're talking past each other. You value something else. What you are valuing isn't YAC. I think you've got a perfect right to value that more. But what you're valuing more isn't YAC. It's something you're creating in your mind. 

 

The point is made. He's elite at YAC. He's not elite at whatever you're valuing. I think it's reasonable for you to personally value someone like Brian Thomas more, either in general or in terms of some standard you have. But it ain't YAC. There's a list. That's YAC. It's Yards After Catch, an objective value that can be quantified into a number, and is.

 

'Nuff said for me.

 

 

Okay so in your opinion Rashee Rice is elite at YAC because he was third in YAC last year?

[mbs]

 

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

The thing is, we've got a QB on a second contract, a very highly paid QB. I agree with you that that keeping the salary cap squarely in mind when deciding what FAs to bring in is a strategy, one that is sensible in the situation.

 

And one of the best ways teams with that situation cope is by not breaking the bank for a Justin Jefferson type. Not all of them do it that way, but many do, Belichick and the Pats included. TEs are cheaper, so they use TEs. They do fill in with FA WRs if they don't have to pay too much.

 

Maybe you're right that they would break the bank if they could, all things being equal. But all things aren't equal, the salary cap is a factor. And most SB winners and dynasties in the salary cap era have had great QBs and managed to get really good production with good receivers (and sometimes great TEs) and generally avoided breaking the bank at that position, particularly to bring in FAs from other teams. Tyreek is the most recent example of not breaking the bank at WR paying off very well for a team that wins Super Bowls.

 

Oh, and efficient is a lot better than nice. It's what everyone is striving for.

 

I'd guess they'll be striving for upgrades at WR as they always do and should do. But that we won't see any top ten WR salaries unless it's someone they drafted working out spectacularly well.

You are probably right about the value of a Jefferson. But I think they will treat WR as a need. Our efficiency on offense is despite a weakness at WR. All teams have weaknesses, but I would prefer ours not be WR. Not sure how the Bills' corps compares to KC's but neither is exceptional which -dammit- is making your case about not needing one.

 

Regardless, they will have some money next year. Maybe Cooper or Samuel will turn up big but there has to be a cap fit, even if it's a stretch, that's better than either has been to this point. Whatever it is, I don't think it's Shakir.

[Billl]

21 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Okay so in your opinion Rashee Rice is elite at YAC because he was third in YAC last year?

He’s the very definition of being elite at YAC.  

[Buffalo Barbarian]

19 hours ago, dayman said:

I hear this a lot this week, in particular, as the football world focuses on our game. It’s usally said as a positive.
 

But the question is—when will everyone (including us) just acknowledge that Khalil Shakir is our number 1 and a legit number 1?
 

He’s no Megatron and we spread the ball but I think he’s good enough for us, and good enough period, that this should be considered an insult to him.

 

 

 

he is for us but i dont think hes a true number one, but we dont need that with this offense. Patriots didn't have a number one WR expect for Moss and he never won a Superbowl.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 07:18 PM by Buffalo Barbarian

[FireChans]

6 minutes ago, Billl said:

He’s the very definition of being elite at YAC.  

Oh I know YOUR opinion lmao. 
 

I want @Thurman#1’s.

[The Jokeman]

3 hours ago, dma0034 said:

Amonra St Brown is the #1 WR for the Lions as a slot. What the Bills need is their version of Jameson Williams. Kind of funny the Bills had MVS here and couldn't figure out how to use him

Cooper Kupp  was a #1 guy from the slot too. Heck look back at Andre Reed.

[C.Biscuit97]

Cooper td is a very live bet.