The overvaluation of Wide receivers

[The Jokeman]

5 hours ago, folz said:

 

I'm not saying Xavier Worthy isn't a good player...but his playoff stats are a bit misleading if you just list the totals, imo.

 

In the first playoff game, he had 48 yards and 0 TDs.

In the second playoff game, if you take away the catch that wasn't a catch (his longest of the day), he would have had 59 yards and 1 TD.

In the Super Bowl, up until 2:33 minutes left in the 3rd quarter, Worthy had 2 receptions for 9 yards. The score was 34-0 Philadelphia at that point. He then had 148 yards and two TDs in garbage time. So, prior to the garbage time stats, in almost 11 of 12 quarters of playoff football, he was averaging 42 yards and 0.36 TDs per playoff game.

 

He still deserves his props. I mean, he nabbed two 50-yard receptions and two TDs in a Super Bowl, not many people can say that, even if it was well after the game had already been decided. But, would he have still been able to do that if it had been a close game? Had Philly let up a bit at that point?

 

Prior to the Super Bowl, the most yards Xavier had in a game this year was 79. Only 6 of 19 games did he have more than 47 yards. And as far as taking the top off: Prior to the end of the SB, he only had three receptions for more than 30 yards in 19 games (good for 31, 35, and 54). Keon also had three receptions over 30 yards this year in 16 games (good for 49, 57, and 64). Keon had 12 receptions of 20+ yards this year, Worthy had 4 receptions of 20+ yards this season (and Keon played 3 fewer games and had 41 fewer targets than Xavier). On the year, Worthy's yards per reception was 10.8 (ranked 109th in the league---Keon was 4th in the league at 19.2, btw). On the year, Worthy's yards per target was 6.5  (ranked 174th in the league---Keon was 9.8, good for a 23rd ranking in the league). For a guy who was drafted to take the top off, he didn't seem to fare as well as even Keon "slow as molasses" Coleman as far as long balls.

 

I just think we need to have a little perspective on Worthy's playoff numbers. Maybe the Super Bowl was his coming out party and he'll kill it next year. Or maybe his SB numbers were heavily inflated by the blow-out nature of the game. The Worthy/Coleman question probably can't be answered until we see another 1-2 seasons.

Well put and great way to put things in perspective on Worthy.

[hjnick]

10 hours ago, Magox said:

This board and for that matter much of the league greatly values the worth of Wide receivers to their teams prospects to having success.   As it stands there are 23 total receivers who make at least $20 million per year of which 11 make more than $25 Million.  Just a couple years ago there were 14 who made $20M+ and just 5 that made $25M+.

 

The rate of inflation for paying receivers has outpaced the rate of the salary cap inflation as a whole.   To put this into perspective, by the time the 2025 season begins nearly half the league will have allocated pretty close to 10% of their entire salary cap towards their star receiver.

 

Justin Jefferson made up 13.7% in 2024

Devante Adams 13.5%

CeeDee Lamb 13.3%

Cooper Kupp 12.8%

AJ Brown 12.5%

Amon-Ra St. Brown 11.8%

Brandon Aiyuk 11.8%

Tyreek Bill 11.8%

Dk Metcalf 11.5%

Deebo Samuel 11.5%

 

Out of which 4 of them made the playoffs this past year.

https://theanalyst.com/2024/09/are-the-highest-paid-wide-receivers-worth-it

 

The league over the past 17 years had steadily increased their rate of passing which justified an increase in the rate of inflation to receivers.    Back in 2005 teams were throwing on average for 203.5 and saw a steady increase all the way to 2020 peaking out at 240.2 yards per game.   Since 2020, teams have began to run the ball more often and more successfully, seeing the passing rate steadily decline to 217.6 yards per game which is a substantial 10% rate of decline in passing yardage over the past 5 years.   It makes sense that teams have evolved and have adjusted to playing more bully ball against teams that were designed to stop passes who employed lighter boxes and base nickel defenses leading to the decline in passing yards.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/passing.htm

 

It's not coincidence that sometime around 2020 NFL teams which was when teams were at their zenith in terms of passing yards had begun to seriously deflate Running back valuations comparatively to the rest of the NFL rate of player personnel pay and began the inflation of wide receiver pay relative to the NFL pay as a whole.

 

The question begs is the rate of pay inflation in the NFL for receivers justified?

 

Before I get into that, I wanted to share some stats.

 

The four teams that threw the ball the least in 2024 was Philadelphia, Baltimore, Green Bay and Buffalo.   All 4 teams were playoff teams, one won the Super Bowl, another went to the AFC championship.  Out of the top 10 teams that passed the ball least 7 made the playoffs.

 

This past year in 2024, out of the top 10 receivers in terms of receiving yards only 3 played in the playoffs, Justin Jefferson, Amon-Ra St. Brown and Ladd McConkey.

 

Out of the top 10 of the teams that spent the most for wide receivers in 2024 only 3 made the playoffs. Out of the bottom 17 teams that spent the least in wide receivers in 2024, nearly half of them did make the playoffs.  

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/position/wide-receiver/_/year/2024/table/active/sort/cash_total

 

It's clear that for NFL teams to be successful that it is not necessary to have true blue #1 blue chip boundary WR's.  Chiefs, Bills and Ravens are examples of this.  Out of the 14 teams that made the playoffs, only 5 teams have receivers that are being paid over $20M a year.

 

It's evident that the NFL has begun to trend towards running against lighter boxes more and passing the ball less.   It takes a little time for GM's to adjust to realities on the ground, but we are beginning to see the deflationary cycle break in terms of paying playmaking RB's, but we've yet to see this happen in the wide receiver market.  There are traditional factors at play such as basic supply and demand, in which unfortunately for RB's, the supply of RB's are expected to increase through this years RB crop of rookies which may put a damper on the overall RB market and that inversely there aren't that many stellar WR's in this year rookie crop which may prevent a lid for WR's.

 

With all that said, I do expect to see the inflationary rate of pay for Wide receivers to begin to subside sometime in the near future.   I don't advocate for having bottom tier talent at the receiver spot, what I am advocating is that it's not necessary to pay these extreme high wages that eat up so much cap room for a WR, specially in a league that has consistently been trending towards passing the ball less over the past 4 seasons.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

WRs, just like RBs, need to be by committee.

 

It is better to have 3-4 really good WRs than 1 super wr and mediocre.

 

Get at least 1 RB and WR in every draft.  There are SO many good WRs that come out of college now, it is best to go by committee.  Make your WR3 better than their CB3 and you'll have someone open all the time.

[Don Otreply]

7 hours ago, MikePJ76 said:

He is not an every down back but he has a quality that is hard to replicate.

 

He is a home run hitter and makes big plays.  He is very quick and explosive and this year his decision making and willingness to run inside put him over the top.  Without a back that can do the same to replace him the offense would be very different.  He turned a number of 8 to 10 yard runs into 20+ runs and at important times.

 

If they pay him and I hope they find a way it will be for that trait.  Comparing him to the traditional everydown back at 225+ who wears people down is the wrong way to view his value and worth to the team.  

 

I think his age and limited number of carries eases the concern about the fall off of old backs and his speed and explosiveness is a unique trait.  The Bills have very few players who can get to the edge anywhere on the field and go to the house.  

You make good points, I suspect cook will be re-signed, but probably not for 15m per year, the offense is looking good presently, hate to make holes that are hard to fill, imo, we still need a speedy WR that can run routes reasonably well, 

[NoSaint]

10 hours ago, Matt_In_NH said:

People cannot stop talking about "weapons"  even after the Bills broke a lot of points records this year.  Meanwhile the DL is the actual problem.  The NFL GM's have gone too far too with paying way too much for WR's, they don't make the difference in the playoffs.   Bengals have Chase and Higgins, Dolphins have Hill and Waddle and they dont even make the playoffs...the Chiefs have been to three straight SB's, won two with very little at WR.   Yet the WGR crowd and many fans get on thier choo choo train about needs dozens of weapons....its so dumb.

I want to break points records without Josh having to mortgage his body as heavily as he has anytime our offense has worked the last couple years

[DeepPass]

9 hours ago, GASabresIUFan said:

Sounds to me that you draft a couple WRs every year and don’t give anyone a 2nd contract.

I'd agree with that strategy.  The manipulation of the salary cap is going to kill the League!

[BillsFanForever19]

10 hours ago, Magox said:

This board and for that matter much of the league greatly values the worth of Wide receivers to their teams prospects to having success.   As it stands there are 23 total receivers who make at least $20 million per year of which 11 make more than $25 Million.  Just a couple years ago there were 14 who made $20M+ and just 5 that made $25M+.

 

The rate of inflation for paying receivers has outpaced the rate of the salary cap inflation as a whole.   To put this into perspective, by the time the 2025 season begins nearly half the league will have allocated pretty close to 10% of their entire salary cap towards their star receiver.

 

Justin Jefferson made up 13.7% in 2024

Devante Adams 13.5%

CeeDee Lamb 13.3%

Cooper Kupp 12.8%

AJ Brown 12.5%

Amon-Ra St. Brown 11.8%

Brandon Aiyuk 11.8%

Tyreek Bill 11.8%

Dk Metcalf 11.5%

Deebo Samuel 11.5%

 

Out of which 4 of them made the playoffs this past year.

https://theanalyst.com/2024/09/are-the-highest-paid-wide-receivers-worth-it

 

The league over the past 17 years had steadily increased their rate of passing which justified an increase in the rate of inflation to receivers.    Back in 2005 teams were throwing on average for 203.5 and saw a steady increase all the way to 2020 peaking out at 240.2 yards per game.   Since 2020, teams have began to run the ball more often and more successfully, seeing the passing rate steadily decline to 217.6 yards per game which is a substantial 10% rate of decline in passing yardage over the past 5 years.   It makes sense that teams have evolved and have adjusted to playing more bully ball against teams that were designed to stop passes who employed lighter boxes and base nickel defenses leading to the decline in passing yards.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/NFL/passing.htm

 

It's not coincidence that sometime around 2020 NFL teams which was when teams were at their zenith in terms of passing yards had begun to seriously deflate Running back valuations comparatively to the rest of the NFL rate of player personnel pay and began the inflation of wide receiver pay relative to the NFL pay as a whole.

 

The question begs is the rate of pay inflation in the NFL for receivers justified?

 

Before I get into that, I wanted to share some stats.

 

The four teams that threw the ball the least in 2024 was Philadelphia, Baltimore, Green Bay and Buffalo.   All 4 teams were playoff teams, one won the Super Bowl, another went to the AFC championship.  Out of the top 10 teams that passed the ball least 7 made the playoffs.

 

This past year in 2024, out of the top 10 receivers in terms of receiving yards only 3 played in the playoffs, Justin Jefferson, Amon-Ra St. Brown and Ladd McConkey.

 

Out of the top 10 of the teams that spent the most for wide receivers in 2024 only 3 made the playoffs. Out of the bottom 17 teams that spent the least in wide receivers in 2024, nearly half of them did make the playoffs.  

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/position/wide-receiver/_/year/2024/table/active/sort/cash_total

 

It's clear that for NFL teams to be successful that it is not necessary to have true blue #1 blue chip boundary WR's.  Chiefs, Bills and Ravens are examples of this.  Out of the 14 teams that made the playoffs, only 5 teams have receivers that are being paid over $20M a year.

 

It's evident that the NFL has begun to trend towards running against lighter boxes more and passing the ball less.   It takes a little time for GM's to adjust to realities on the ground, but we are beginning to see the deflationary cycle break in terms of paying playmaking RB's, but we've yet to see this happen in the wide receiver market.  There are traditional factors at play such as basic supply and demand, in which unfortunately for RB's, the supply of RB's are expected to increase through this years RB crop of rookies which may put a damper on the overall RB market and that inversely there aren't that many stellar WR's in this year rookie crop which may prevent a lid for WR's.

 

With all that said, I do expect to see the inflationary rate of pay for Wide receivers to begin to subside sometime in the near future.   I don't advocate for having bottom tier talent at the receiver spot, what I am advocating is that it's not necessary to pay these extreme high wages that eat up so much cap room for a WR, specially in a league that has consistently been trending towards passing the ball less over the past 4 seasons.   

 

You do realize that as important as the Defense was to the Eagles winning the Championship - them being able to score at will, run up the scoreboard, and put it out of the reach when the Defense was getting those stops, played just as much of a role as them winning, right?

 

The Eagles having the tandem of AJ Brown (who they spent a 1st Round Pick on to acquire and signed to a 4 year 100m contract) and Devonta Smith (who they spent a Top 10 Draft Pick on) is as large of a reason as any that the Eagles deck was stacked for Super Bowl dominance. 

[Matt_In_NH]

2 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

You do realize that as important as the Defense was to the Eagles winning the Championship - them being able to score at will, run up the scoreboard, and put it out of the reach when the Defense was getting those stops, played just as much of a role as them winning, right?

 

The Eagles having the tandem of AJ Brown (who they spent a 1st Round Pick on to acquire and signed to a 4 year 100m contract) and Devonta Smith (who they spent a Top 10 Draft Pick on) is as large of a reason as any that the Eagles deck was stacked for Super Bowl dominance. 

They did not say WRs don’t matter.  Rather they are over valued.  The eagles have talent all over their roster.  How about the chiefs wr situation?   They traded Hill and went to three straight sbs. Winning two.  Bengals and dolphins have great WRs and have zero playoff wins last two years. 

[Alphadawg7]

21 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

Really good post, but you gotta fix that typo

Other than that, I gotta point out that clutch WR play did seem to play a key role in winning that Superbowl for Davonta Smith - who was able to make some of those key receptions because the Chiefs were busy trying to smother AJ Brown.   

 

I think your assessment means it's even more critical to identify WR talent that can contribute immediately in the draft - and so far the Bills are 0 for 2 in getting immediate contributions from their 1st and 2nd round receiver picks.

Key role though?  I mean this is the same SB where the Chiefs were losing 34-0 at one point thanks to the smothering DL of the Eagles.   
 

No disrespect Beck, but Duke Williams could have replaced DeVonta Smith that game and KC still gets slaughtered.  
 

Also, I am confused by your statement of Bills being 0-2 in getting immediate contributions on 1st and 2nd round receivers.  Who are the 1st and 2nd round guys?  They spent a first to get Diggs and he was a stud out the gate, and in the draft the only other WR they took in those rounds was Keon.  Keon made some plays and an injury derailed him ans he was starting to emerge.   And if the other is Kincaid, out the gate he had the 4th most receptions and 10th most yards for a rookie TE in NFL history.  So he came out the gate pretty good.  

0

9 hours ago, Matt_In_NH said:

Bengals and dolphins have great WRs and have zero playoff wins last two years. 

Not only no playoffs, but only one of those 4 teams actually made the playoffs in the last 2 years. Out of the 4, the Bengals have missed the last 2 years and Miami missed this year.  

Edited Monday at 03:43 PM by Alphadawg7

[BillsFanForever19]

2 hours ago, Matt_In_NH said:

They did not say WRs don’t matter.  Rather they are over valued.  The eagles have talent all over their roster.  How about the chiefs wr situation?   They traded Hill and went to three straight sbs. Winning two.  Bengals and dolphins have great WRs and have zero playoff wins last two years. 

 

The Kansas City Chiefs have had the same #1 WR for years. Travis Kelce is a Tight End in name only. He's as much a TE as Von Miller is a LB. He's a Big Slot WR. 

[Thurman#1]

17 hours ago, US Egg said:

I’m thinking it’s simply due to the fact that almost 2/3 of offensive plays target WR’s. 

 

 

No, not even slightly close. That's just wrong.

 

Far less than 2/3rds of all offensive plays are passes. Far less.

 

The highest pass/run percentage in the league is Cincy, at 62.8%. League average is closer to 55%.

 

And that's passes. NOT just passes to wide receivers. Subtract out all passes to RBs, TEs and eligible OLs, and it's way less than 40%.

 

More like 1/3 than 2/3 of offensive plays target WRs.

 

 

Edited Monday at 10:22 AM by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

17 hours ago, FireChans said:

 

 

Let’s play your analysis back a different way.

 

5 of the top 12 running backs by rushing yards did not make the postseason. Does this mean that running the ball well is ALSO not really strongly correlated with success? 

 

 

No, just the opposite. When 7 of the top 12 RBs are within the top 14 of 32 playoff teams that indicates success. Not lack of success. 

 

 

17 hours ago, FireChans said:

 

 

5 out of the 10 top QB’s by AAV didn’t make the postseason in 2024. Does this mean that paying QB’s is a mistake and doesn’t help you win?

 

Of course not.

 

Right. Again, that's an indicator of success, not a lack of success.

 

It means that QBs in the top 10 of AAV made the playoffs at higher rates than those below the top 10. Particularly as the two teams in the Super Bowl are both in that list of the top ten QBs in terms of AAV. And three of the four teams in the conference championships. 

 

 

15 hours ago, FireChans said:

What you are missing is that having good to great WR’s helps the most important position on the field.

 

Um, no, he's not missing that in any way shape or form. 

 

Of course having good to great WRs helps the most important position on the field. Of course it does.

 

So does having good to great players at every single other position on the field. OLs. RBs. TEs. Punters, who help the QB get better field position. Pass rushers who help get more possessions. EVERY ... POSITION ... ON THE FIELD.

 

RBs help take responsibility off the QB and make things much more difficult on the defense in terms of handling both offensive modes instead of letting them concentrate basically on the passing game. Everyone helps the QB, that's part of it being a team game.

 

 

 

You're right, of course, that it's more complicated than a straight causative relationship. It's complex. Some great QBs either have rookie contracts (Daniels) or older cheaper ones that will be updated soon (Josh). Same sort of thing with WRs and RBs, and everyone, really. AAV isn't a perfect gauge of talent. It's a damn good gauge of how positions are valued, though.

 

OP has a very interesting point. Values may start to go down a bit. They won't plummet, but go down in comparison to other positions? Could easily happen.

 

But year after year it's unusual to see true #1s in the Super Bowl. It does happen, including arguably this year with A.J. Brown. But it's unusual. Usually teams that have QBs on second contracts have to cut elsewhere and WRs are usually one of the areas they cut out (see the Chiefs and what they did with Tyreek and his second contract). A spectacular QB can usually get by much much better without a true #1 than can a new QB or a more average QB.

Edited Monday at 10:20 AM by Thurman#1

[Matt_In_NH]

2 hours ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

 

The Kansas City Chiefs have had the same #1 WR for years. Travis Kelce is a Tight End in name only. He's as much a TE as Von Miller is a LB. He's a Big Slot WR. 

He is a TE but its fair that he has been a dynamic weapon in the pass game.  Still does not change the fact they have had severe limitations at WR.

[MiracleAtRich1393]

15 hours ago, Matt_In_NH said:

My point is not that more talent is not better its just the obsession with only one position....and I believe some nasty DL would have a bigger impact in a playoff game vs the chiefs than a WR...the SB validated that.  You dont have to outscore the chiefs by scoring a million points....you can stop them.

Correct, our defense is what lost us the game not the offense. But I think even with the defense we had, we would have beaten them with that added element of a BTJR. He would have made a difference. In the super bowl against the Eagles, we would have needed a field stretching element to stand a chance as well.

 

The Eagles also won because they surrounded a worse QB than Allen with a stud AJ Brown (who we passed over for Cody Ford 😭) and two other 1st round WR's in Smith & Dotson (who they stole from a rival). They COMPLTELELY whiffed on Reagor but that did not deter them. They added DeVonta Smith in the top 10 the following year, traded a first for AJ Brown the year after that, then added Dotson this past off-season and signed Saquan Barkley. You could say they were almost insatiable in their pursuit of adding top flight offensive weapons. They just did it alongside adding top flight defensive pieces (a.k.a. not whiffing on all of their premium DLine picks like Beane)

[Mr. WEO]

I don't think the non appearance in the playoffs is a meaningful measure of a WR's value.   Maybe the QB position is overvalued--Bengals, Cowboys, Jags, Dolphins (4 of top 5 annual contract salaries) didn't make the playoffs.

 

Nobody here would not swap out for Miami or Cincy's top 2 receivers.

Edited Monday at 12:54 PM by Mr. WEO

[Magox]

19 hours ago, FireChans said:

 

If you are basing your analysis off being paid, rookie contracts by definition are going to be excluded. So the entire GB recieving group is of course eliminated from this analysis. Devonta Smith isn’t included because his extension hasn’t come in yet. 

 

Devonta Smith is a great WR. His cap hit this season is only $7M because he’s still playing on a rookie deal.

 

 

I want to start off by saying that it is impossible to gather a few data points and expect them to be dispositive.   With that said, some of this data does strong enforce probability trends.

 

I do believe Wide receivers are important, I think they are the third maybe possibly the 4th most important position grouping.  I sense that you believe they are the 2nd and current NFL salaries suggest the same.   I think it's very important to have at least one boundary receiver who can get some separation and beat defenders 1 v 1 down the field.   It's pretty clear to me that players like McDuffie who are fantastic in coverage are vulnerable when they have to defend players on go routes.  This was evidenced with Mack Hollins getting the best of him and AJ Brown who beat him 2-3 times on these patterns.    We saw how important it was when the Bills defeated the Chiefs earlier in the season where Amari had two high leverage third down plays where he beat his guy to extend the drives on these routes.   

 

So there is no disagreement in terms of how I view having a guy who can win on high leverage 1 v 1 opportunities.   Where we may also differ is not if WR's are important but how much should they be valued?  I don't believe that for most teams specially the Bills that spending over 10% of your cap on a receiver is a recipe for success and I laid out a number of reasons in my post.  Of course a team like Philadelphia is the exception, but lets be real, any of the playoff teams offense would have won that game against the Chiefs because of that dominant defense and of course you have an owner like Jeffrey Lurie who is willing to pay out exorbitant real cash dollars to his team in order to succeed.  He is paying over 1000% more on Voided contract years than the means, meaning that his cash expenditures going forward will be higher than any other teams.   Of course it is very helpful that they have had tremendous drafts on the defensive side of the ball over the past 3 years.

 

Referencing your above point, yes I do believe having lots of players on rookie deals is very important for NFL contending teams.  

 

 

 

Quote

The argument that the running teams make the playoffs more is no different than folks arguing a decade ago that the teams with the highest passing yards sometimes missed the playoffs, ergo, we don’t need a QB. It’s faulty analysis. I would bet heavily that the teams that the teams that threw the least in 2024 also had near tops in the league time spent with a lead. The teams that passed the most, like the Bengals, were forced to. That is not necessarily the reason they were bad. Correlation =\= causation.

 

Nowhere do I even come close to implying that QB's aren't important.  You seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying.  The point that I am making is that teams that can run the ball effectively is a big ingredient for many of the successful teams.  It's not needed for every single team, every team is unique and it isn't fully dispositive but again, these data points are suggestive of probability trends.  So yes, having a really good running game is very helpful to teams that want to succeed in the league.  Combine that with a good QB and look out!

Quote

 

The argument I would make about WR’s is that while they are getting paid big bucks now, more and more talented athletes will play WR and enter the draft, and with an artificial ceiling on spending, they will dilute the market. Their value won’t continue to explode because of market forces.

 

Make no mistake though. WRs are very important. Justin Jefferson is a big reason why Sam Darnold revived his career. Stefon Diggs was a big reason that Josh exploded on the scene as a superstar.

 

They will continue to be important. The “middle class” of WR’s like Shakir will be overpaid, but the truly elite guys are going to be worth every penny.

 

 

One of the biggest factors for above means player personnel inflation is (FOMO).  Many teams view WR's as essential to their overall success and when they have those players moving into their 2nd contracts, they fear that if they don't meet their agents demands that he'll go on to another team.  It's a very valid and powerful fear and it also drives up prices.   I value WR's and the role they play, I just don't value them to the tune of 10% of a team's salary cap.

 

It's very clear that the two most recent dynasties Chiefs and Patriots that a competent receiving corps won 9 out of the 10 Superbowls they have without a blue chip boundary WR.  Meaning that a QB that can throw to a number of competent weapons can more than get the job done.    

 

I would prefer more of the moneyball approach, and specifically for the Bills they have good TE's (I expect Kincaid to improve) and they have a really good slot guy in Shakir, that they should look to get a separation/speed specialist to play the boundary role that they would be missing if Amari doesn't return.  And I think you can get someone like that at a considerably smaller contract than getting that stud on the boundary, unless one were to be able to be obtained via draft, in which I'd be all for that.

 

Quote

What you are missing is that having good to great WR’s helps the most important position on the field.

 

I'm not missing that at all, you are believing things that I'm not saying.

Quote

 

Despite Barkley and Henry having career years, in both of their team’s final games of the year, they didn’t do much. It came down to the QB passing.

 

 

Barkley's play absolutely opened up things for their passing game and same with Henry against the Bills.   Those two teams would not have had as many wins as they did if it weren't for those two guys.  You are just flat out wrong.

 

 

Quote

 

Sure, the OL matters a lot too, but that’s a 5 position group so their numbers get spread out. But LTs and to a lesser extent RT’s get big bucks too.

 

The other thing is efficiency. Jamar Chase had a great 9.8 yard per target. Barkley and Henry had 6.0 and 6.1 yards per touch.

 

You are quite literally getting almost 40% more yards just THROWING AT CHASE, not even necessarily completions, than handing off or completing passes to backs.

 

 

Yeah, I think LT and RT's are extremely important, I rate them as either the 3rd or 4th most important position grouping.  Being able to neutralize the opposing teams top rusher without having to receive double teams allows other players to be freed up, protects your most valuable asset from giving up sacks and can provide good pockets to throw the ball providing mental security.  Look at how flustered Mahomes was, he was starting to see ghosts himself.  Either way, I view Tackles as extremely important and the way this Bills team is constructed, I'm good with the Bills spending $35M a year between their two tackles.

 

Jamar Chase is great.  Maybe the best and he's a true difference maker.  But I'd hardly point to the Bengals as a team in terms of roster construction as a model of success and they haven't even had to pay their 2nd contracts yet for Higgins and Chase.   The Bills WR's make up 28% of their overall yardage and I saw you say that was because they had to because the WR's couldn't get open or something along those lines.   Even if that were true, which I don't believe it to be but lets just say it were true, does it really matter?  The Bills scored 3 points per drive which was the tops in the NFL and the best in the past 20 years meaning they were highly efficient on offense. They had the least combination of sacks/int's in the past 20 years.   Buffalo's offense leads the league in points per drive averaging just over a field goal per possession (3.01 pts/drive) and they rank first in drive score percentage with almost 52 percent of their drives resulting in a touchdown or a field goal (51.7%). Bottom line is that the offense more than thrived this year, just because they didn't have as many explosive flashy plays in no way diminishes how effective their offense was this past year.    So you can try to make that point but it's an impotent one. 

 

Edited Monday at 01:06 PM by Magox

[Matt_In_NH]

1 hour ago, MiracleAtRich1393 said:

Correct, our defense is what lost us the game not the offense. But I think even with the defense we had, we would have beaten them with that added element of a BTJR. He would have made a difference. In the super bowl against the Eagles, we would have needed a field stretching element to stand a chance as well.

 

The Eagles also won because they surrounded a worse QB than Allen with a stud AJ Brown (who we passed over for Cody Ford 😭) and two other 1st round WR's in Smith & Dotson (who they stole from a rival). They COMPLTELELY whiffed on Reagor but that did not deter them. They added DeVonta Smith in the top 10 the following year, traded a first for AJ Brown the year after that, then added Dotson this past off-season and signed Saquan Barkley. You could say they were almost insatiable in their pursuit of adding top flight offensive weapons. They just did it alongside adding top flight defensive pieces (a.k.a. not whiffing on all of their premium DLine picks like Beane)

I am not going to try and argue the Eagles don't have better WR's than the Bills, they do.  Who cares what round these guys were drafted, it is what they have done.  You say the Eagles "stole" Dotson from the Commanders....and you seem to think it is really important he was a first round pick.  He has not performed like a first round pick, not for Washington and not for Philly....he is a low end #3.   The Eagles probably have the best roster top to bottom so even though Hurts may not be top tier they can win with him...and btw he is pretty close to top tier.   The Eagles are pushing the limits on salary cap manipulation even more than the Saints used to do....they will be forced to not sign or get rid of key guys just like the Saints did.   There are different ways to build a winning team, we tend to look at who won the SB and think that is how it should be done.  The Bills need to find some blue chip players one way or another to add to Allen.  

[FireChans]

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

So does having good to great players at every single other position on the field. OLs. RBs. TEs. Punters, who help the QB get better field position. Pass rushers who help get more possessions. EVERY ... POSITION ... ON THE FIELD.

Yeah it’s not the same level. 
 

You take a good to great punter or running back, I’ll take Justin Jefferson. We’ll see what QB looks better. 

[FireChans]

58 minutes ago, Magox said:

The Bills WR's make up 28% of their overall yardage and I saw you say that was because they had to because the WR's couldn't get open or something along those lines.   Even if that were true, which I don't believe it to be but lets just say it were true, does it really matter?  The Bills scored 3 points per drive which was the tops in the NFL and the best in the past 20 years meaning they were highly efficient on offense. They had the least combination of sacks/int's in the past 20 years.   Buffalo's offense leads the league in points per drive averaging just over a field goal per possession (3.01 pts/drive) and they rank first in drive score percentage with almost 52 percent of their drives resulting in a touchdown or a field goal (51.7%). Bottom line is that the offense more than thrived this year, just because they didn't have as many explosive flashy plays in no way diminishes how effective their offense was this past year.    So you can try to make that point but it's an impotent one. 

I mean, if you think it’s the correct strategy to have Josh put his body on the line every season, resulting in multiple injuries, including breaking his hand week 1 that limited him for half the season, that’s your prerogative.

 

I think it’s a complete and utter mistake. Josh won MVP in large part because he brought this group where he did. Because HE was the offensive engine.

 

There was once a QB who had his best season, an MVP season, with a diminished stable of weapons. 2 years later, he was a shell of himself.

 

“We don’t really need a Jamar Chase, our offense was great without him” is really really shocking to hear. Just expect Josh to carry the JAG brigade and never turn it over and throw himself over linebackers forever.

1 hour ago, Magox said:

I would prefer more of the moneyball approach, and specifically for the Bills they have good TE's (I expect Kincaid to improve) and they have a really good slot guy in Shakir, that they should look to get a separation/speed specialist to play the boundary role that they would be missing if Amari doesn't return.  And I think you can get someone like that at a considerably smaller contract than getting that stud on the boundary, unless one were to be able to be obtained via draft, in which I'd be all for that.

That’s totally fair.

 

I wouldn’t touch Shakir at $20M AAV though, would you?

[The Jokeman]

14 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Yeah it’s not the same level. 
 

You take a good to great punter or running back, I’ll take Justin Jefferson. We’ll see what QB looks better. 

and where has Justin Jefferson gotten the Vikings to in the playoffs?

[Magox]

3 minutes ago, FireChans said:

 

 

I wouldn’t touch Shakir at $20M AAV though, would you?

 

I hope not but it's that FOMO factor.   If he leaves then there has to be someone or a couple receivers that can replace that production and efficiency.  He's highly efficient, never drops passes, has play making ability when he gets the ball in his hands, is a decent route runner and Josh trusts him.    I don't believe he's worth $20M a year not because of how I view him as a player but because I don't believe receivers in general are worth that unless they truly are elite who can play efficiently from the boundary as well.  

 

It's tough, when you have players you drafted and its time for their 2nd contract specially at the WR spot.  The Chiefs letting go of Tyreek must have been an extremely difficult decision for them.  He wanted to get paid 13% of their cap, the Chiefs made the calculation that by doing this that it would fit into their plans into how they wanted to construct their roster and it paid off it in a huge way for them.   

 

Again, the two most recent dynasties in 9 out of their last 10 Super bowl winning years didn't have a true blue chip #1 WR.   I don't care what anyone has to say, that speaks volumes.