Can Brady scheme for #1 WR’s?

[Bangarang]

10 hours ago, eSJayDee said:

I think one question is - why would you want to?  The idea is to get someONE open.  Doesn't matter who.  Yes, you'd rather have someone wide open 30 yds downfield as opposed to 3, but it's much easier to take what the defense gives you.  If you're trying to "scheme" that guy open 30 yds downfield, that is much easier accomplished if the defense doesn't know who you're gonna throw it to.  Look at the success throwing to Diggs as opposed to Shakir or Kincaid the end of '23.  Shakir was FAR more successful - more completions for more yards on far less attempts.

 

Having a legit #1 WR can change the entire dynamic of a game. Currently, there isn't a single receiver on this team that gives defenses and DCs fits. DCs don't have to adjust their gameplan because they are scared of anyone going off and taking a game over. Additionally, the attention of a #1 WR helps other guys get open because of the way the coverage is. 

 

Shakir is a nice player but he is more of a complementary piece. He'd be even better if we had someone on the outside who could actually draw attention from the defense and get open downfield. That should be Beane's focal point this offseason imo. 

Edited Wednesday at 04:07 PM by Bangarang

[Goin Breakdown]

Does he even want to?  Coaching wants a balanced offense that features a rushing attack. There really hasn't been a whole lot that shows Buffalo wants fast separating WRs. 
This year will be all about building a defense (that will again collapse in the post season due to coaching philosophy) so I don't think next year is going to change much on offense. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

Brandon Beane said he liked that teams couldn’t focus on 1 player. He liked the selflessness of the group. He said this will continue moving forward.

 

I wouldn’t expect a true alpha WR1 coming to Buffalo anytime soon. 

[Buffalo_Stampede]

This is kind of related. We compared our approach to GB. Look what their star RB thinks of that. 
 

By the way, if Reed or Doubs feel disrespected, Buffalo would love to have you.

 

 

[GunnerBill]

16 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

This is kind of related. We compared our approach to GB. Look what their star RB thinks of that. 
 

By the way, if Reed or Doubs feel disrespected, Buffalo would love to have you.

 

 

 

Reed and Doubs are also not #1s. The closest guy they have is Watson but he can't stay healthy.

[No_Matter_What]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:

This is kind of related. We compared our approach to GB. Look what their star RB thinks of that. 
 

By the way, if Reed or Doubs feel disrespected, Buffalo would love to have you.

 

 

Wow did he really say this? "We need a real WR"?

[Logic]

I was planning to make this exact post at some point this offseason.

We all know Joe Brady can coordinate a successful egalitarian offense. One where "everybody eats" and the ball is spread around and different players are featured each week.

But can he, if necessary, feature a WR1 and maximize the talents and production of that player? When the Bills hit a week where "everybody eats" isn't working, or where the optimal strategy would be to exploit a certain advantageous WR vs CB matchup over and over again, does Brady have the goods? When the offense hits a lull or Josh Allen is in a "gotta have it" 3rd and long, does Brady's playbook feature a page that says "WR1's best plays"?

I've heard it said again and again that in crunch time, in the big moments, playcallers should think players, not plays. They should have the ability to say "this is an Amari Cooper down", for instance, and then have a handful of plays they know that player excels on.

People can question Diggs' ability and effort level in his last year here. People can wonder if Amari Cooper's wrist hurt him more than he let on or if he's lost a step. But me? I think the notion that Brady may not be able to effectively feature one pass catcher in a purposeful and productive way is a viable notion to ponder. He has not yet shown he is able to do so, and until he does, it's a legitimate question.

Edited Wednesday at 06:08 PM by Logic

[RyanC883]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Reed and Doubs are also not #1s. The closest guy they have is Watson but he can't stay healthy.

 

I think Reed would be #1 here, however?  

[Brianmoorman4jesus]

Who cares? We scored at will all year and moved the ball on every single defense. Our offense is elite. It’s not an issue whatsoever. Don’t even look at the offense. Every single problem we have is the guys scheming up the defense 

[ColoradoBills]

Brady had only 1 offseason to develop his plan for Josh Allen and the offense.

He did a pretty darn good job and utilized his players well.

 

There is not going to be a lot of changes in offensive personnel with the exception of the WR room this year.

His game-planning and overall schemes should mature this year.

I'm very hopeful Brady, Josh, Beane and McDermott will get the O even better.

 

The biggest low-lying fruit is on the defensive side of the ball.  Get that right, return to the AFCCG and win it this time!

[Matt_In_NH]

There is no end the the obsession with "#1 WR's".  I would say Brady did a fantastic job all year of scheming for EPA and it resulted in the best overall point production in team history.  It continued in the playoffs vs very good defenses.  Go back to your #1 WR thing.......

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, RyanC883 said:

 

I think Reed would be #1 here, however?  

 

Reed would be a de-facto #1 here like he has been in Green Bay by virtue of being the best receiver but he isn't a #1 receiver talent IMO. He is a very good #2.

[RyanC883]

1 hour ago, Matt_In_NH said:

There is no end the the obsession with "#1 WR's".  I would say Brady did a fantastic job all year of scheming for EPA and it resulted in the best overall point production in team history.  It continued in the playoffs vs very good defenses.  Go back to your #1 WR thing.......

 

except in the playoffs and even regular season there were multiple times we relied on JA extending plays because the WRs took forever to get open

[Mikie2times]

It's funny how sensitive people can be to just a basic question in how we view things. So you have some perspective.....

 

Diggs had Brady as his OC for 7 regular season games he was active in. If you only look at games Diggs was active, he had 137 games in which a previous 7 game sample existed. This crosses seasons. It obviously wouldn't start until he has played in 7 games in his career. Out of those 137 instances, he had 1 where he averaged less yards than the 7 game sample with Brady. It happened the previous 7 games week 1 of 2016 (so the end of his rookie year).

 

Cooper had Brady for 8 regular season games he was active for. If you look at games in which Cooper was active, he had 154 games in which a previous 8 game sample existed. Out of those 154 instances, he had 3 where he averaged less yards than the 8 game sample with Brady. All 3 happened concurrently his 3rd year with the Raiders.

 

So when we say these questions aren't meaningful, I really don't understand how people can arrive at that.

 

These are the options that explain the above:

• Both were so forgone/injured _____ that they just both happened to have near career low output in B2B years with us (in a very good offense which makes it even more weird). 
• Brady can effectively scheme a #1 but it should or shouldn't matter to us because our offense is very successful 
• Brady can't effectively scheme a #1 but it should or shouldn't matter to us because our offense is very successful 

In those three options, sure, it can be a blend. But only 1 option suggests spending on a #1 would amount to anything more than a decoy. Which might in fact be a very valuable thing to us but I don't imagine it would be enticing to a FA. Nor would it be an advantage that isn't eventually taken away if you don't in fact eventually use that weapon. It can only be a decoy for so long. 

 

As we ask ourselves what priority we place on FA's and the draft I think this question is probably among the most important to the offseason. 

Edited Wednesday at 09:53 PM by Mikie2times

[HappyDays]

12 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

Diggs had Brady as his OC for 7 regular season games he was active in. If you only look at games Diggs was active, he had 137 games in which a previous 7 game sample existed. This crosses seasons. It obviously wouldn't start until he has played in 7 games in his career. Out of those 137 instances, he had 1 where he averaged less yards than the 7 game sample with Brady. It happened the previous 7 games week 1 of 2016 (so the end of his rookie year).

 

Cooper had Brady for 8 regular season games he was active for. If you look at games in which Cooper was active, he had 154 games in which a previous 8 game sample existed. Out of those 154 instances, he had 3 where he averaged less yards than the 8 game sample with Brady. All 3 happened concurrently his 3rd year with the Raiders.

 

 

It's a tough question to answer because both Diggs and Cooper showed signs of decline before they ended up with Brady. We haven't seen him coach a Bills offense with a true #1 WR so it's hard to say what that would look like.

 

I am more perplexed by Cooper's underwhelming production than Diggs'. We weirdly used him more in his first game here than we did in almost any other game. We tried to feed him in the Rams game too but he only caught 6 of 14 targets in that one. Did that dissuade us from making him a focal point in other games? He had two big completions downfield against KC but both were against a replacement level CB.

 

I know PFF (for whatever that's worth) did not grade Cooper favorably in his time here. On the year they graded him 68.3 which ranked 61st out of 98 WRs and I can tell you having seen the week to week grades they were even worse than that with the Bills. For example he was our 2nd worst graded player against Baltimore with a paltry 53.2. And I know there were several times in that game where we dialed up a shot but Cooper didn't separate so Josh checked it down. So is that Brady's fault for not giving him good looks or did Cooper just not perform well?

 

All of this is a long winded way of saying I don't know. I think we need to make it a point to significantly upgrade both outside WR spots and then we will know for sure what Brady is capable of.

[Mikie2times]

48 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

It's a tough question to answer because both Diggs and Cooper showed signs of decline before they ended up with Brady. We haven't seen him coach a Bills offense with a true #1 WR so it's hard to say what that would look like.

 

I am more perplexed by Cooper's underwhelming production than Diggs'. We weirdly used him more in his first game here than we did in almost any other game. We tried to feed him in the Rams game too but he only caught 6 of 14 targets in that one. Did that dissuade us from making him a focal point in other games? He had two big completions downfield against KC but both were against a replacement level CB.

 

I know PFF (for whatever that's worth) did not grade Cooper favorably in his time here. On the year they graded him 68.3 which ranked 61st out of 98 WRs and I can tell you having seen the week to week grades they were even worse than that with the Bills. For example he was our 2nd worst graded player against Baltimore with a paltry 53.2. And I know there were several times in that game where we dialed up a shot but Cooper didn't separate so Josh checked it down. So is that Brady's fault for not giving him good looks or did Cooper just not perform well?

 

All of this is a long winded way of saying I don't know. I think we need to make it a point to significantly upgrade both outside WR spots and then we will know for sure what Brady is capable of.

This is largely where I'm at, but I will say, the idea of getting an ACTUAL game wrecker at DL is more appealing based on this. Which I believe you oppose. But I feel like it's more based on hitting on who that difference maker is vs the side of the ball they play. I'm squeamish we would be getting the max benefit of a WR1 which make me lean DL. But more than anything we just need a clear hit. 

Edited Wednesday at 11:09 PM by Mikie2times

[Alphadawg7]

18 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

Diggs for his sample under Brady was his worst since joining Buffalo. Cooper just had one of his worst seasons as a pro. I think most people see these outcomes as two separate things and that very well could be the case. Diggs was a little banged up + drama and Cooper was also banged up. But I’m also not ignoring the common denominator of the two being Brady especially when I see people advocating for that #1 WR. 
 

Do you think these two WR’s suffered decreases independent of Brady or do think his scheme limited them?  If the scheme limits #1’s do you still value a true #1 the same as you would in another scheme?
 

 

 

I think its more that this offense is really and truly an "everybody eats" philosophy which the basis of is not rooted in just spreading the ball around, but taking what the defense offers and creating high percentage opportunities.  

 

Doesn't mean we shouldn't have an established WR1 on the outside, just think even if we did they are not going to have overwhelming stats like the kind of Seasons Diggs had here earlier on.  

 

Now to answer the question, I do think Brady would very much be able to scheme just fine with a bonafide WR1 on the outside.  But it wouldn't surprise me if that WR1 finished with modest season totals either due to the nature of this offense which now also includes a very effective ground game.  

[Jimmy Harris 69]

Ok, I wish they had drafted Worthy just so Kansas City didn’t get him. Fine. 

[Thurman#1]

On 2/6/2025 at 1:29 AM, Buffalo_Stampede said:

Brandon Beane said he liked that teams couldn’t focus on 1 player. He liked the selflessness of the group. He said this will continue moving forward.

 

I wouldn’t expect a true alpha WR1 coming to Buffalo anytime soon. 

 

 

This is my guess, unless we draft and develop one.

 

In any case, game-planning the offense for a team with a #1 is easier, not harder.

 

I'm not sure the 2023 Diggs is a true #1, and I think it's very arguable that Cooper never was. Still, OP has an interesting observation there. Worth mentioning, I think.

 

Cooper has spent much of his career as a top 20 WR, but "true #1" is questionable.

 

I think they're going to bring in a WR, maybe someone on the general level of an Emmanuel Sanders or a John Brown. And maybe draft someone in the top two or three rounds as well.

 

 

On 2/6/2025 at 8:16 AM, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I think its more that this offense is really and truly an "everybody eats" philosophy which the basis of is not rooted in just spreading the ball around, but taking what the defense offers and creating high percentage opportunities.  

 

Doesn't mean we shouldn't have an established WR1 on the outside, just think even if we did they are not going to have overwhelming stats like the kind of Seasons Diggs had here earlier on.  

 

Now to answer the question, I do think Brady would very much be able to scheme just fine with a bonafide WR1 on the outside.  But it wouldn't surprise me if that WR1 finished with modest season totals either due to the nature of this offense which now also includes a very effective ground game.  

 

 

Yup, this also seems very reasonable to me.