oldmanfan
-
Posts
12,554 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by oldmanfan
-
-
9 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
I’ve never understood this take on Josh Allen. His strength is NOT the deep ball. In fact the deep ball just exposes his well documented weakness…which is accuracy. His strength is throwing the ball hard! To play to his strength he needs receivers who can hang on to his fast ball.
He is accurate. How many times have you seen him drill the ball into a really tight spot. If you expect a a throw that goes 50-60 yards in the air to drop on a dime every QB in the league will disappoint.
-
2
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Fan in Chicago said:
This question has been more than adequately answered by @Beck Water @GunnerBilland @Thrivefourfive.
I am sensing that you are looking for some sort of support that Kincaid is that player. He isn't and shouldn't be. We need a WR who is fast enough and gains separation down the field to challenge defenses. Kincaid will be a good one but not a substitute. Just because the Chiefs made it work (more out of necessity) doesn't mean we should strive to emulate them
What my question has elicited is that there are multiple opinions on what constitutes a # 1. I highlight Kincaid because the Super Bowl champs have made things work with a TE that is their primary guy. I just think all the yelling about having a #1 WR is lazy.
Would I like to have a guy like Chase? Sure. Was Diggs a #1, at least according to some of the descriptions in this thread? Yeah. But was he the last half of last year? Not really, if you believe guys like Greg Cosell.
The most important thing to me for the offense is Joe Brady. Can his offense use a group including Coleman, Shakir, Samuel, Kincaid et al effectively..-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, BananaB said:
Shakir is in the exact same situation as Davis was 2 years. The only difference in this situation is we don’t have a legit #1 WR like we did two years ago. If this doesn’t work out it’s gonna be worse than the past 2 years. The draft was heavy at WR and they took one. If Coleman has a slow transition this team is *****.
Terrible management
Davis was a failed #2. He was super inconsistent despite having a few big games.
Again, what is a “legit # 1 WR”? I look at the two teams in the Super Bowl last year. Did either of them have a WR that was a legit #1 WR? Or did they have a great TE like the chiefs, or a good collection of WRs and a good TE like the Niners?
-
28 minutes ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said:
You have a QB that's a Maserati. He's built for bombs away. But instead of building your offense for that, you build it for plodding, 10 yards at a time max, 10 minute drive offense. So I ask, what is the point?
What's the point of having a guy who's designed by nature to bomb the football deep and whose weakness is dink and dunk stuck in an offensive scheme that is built to do just that?
Why not offload him for someone who's better suited for that kind of thing if you refuse to play to his strengths? That's what I can't wrap my head around. It makes no sense.
Data someone provided yesterday showed that on average there is less than one pass a game thrown 40 yards and over in the NFL.
2 minutes ago, Billy Claude said:I do worry that the front office is not paying to Allen's strengths. Allen does not like the short game. He loses patience with it too easily. It also requires a lot of pre-snap reads which not his forte. He displayed more patience at the end of last season, maybe he will keep it up.
However Allen is also not great at the long bombs. Yes you can find instance of crucial drops but it is not all the receivers fault.
What Allen is great at is the intermediate 10 to 25 yard pass. Until recently Diggs had been pivotal in that role. Hopefully they have a replacement. It is certainly not clear that us the case.
Then maybe he needs to work on his patience
-
7
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Bangarang said:
The premise of this thread is one poor attempt at some gotcha moment. I'm going to assume you're intentionally being obtuse and are actually smart enough to have an idea what makes someone a #1 WR.
Nope again. Look at answers here.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Bangarang said:
So what you're saying is that you can't name a single #1 WR in the league nor have any idea what it might mean to be one?
I can name some that are the best on their team. But what defines a # 1 WR is not universal as you can see from answers here.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Beck Water said:
Good post.
People 100% use the phrase "#1 receiver" in different ways, meaning different things, and it leads to people talking at cross purposes.
The conventional meaning of "#1 receiver" is the guy who commands the lion's share of the targets. He does this by being fast enough to threaten downfield; having the release moves/size/strength to get off the line against press man and not get shoved off his routes by physical DB play; being athletic enough to come down with contested catches; being able to run all the routes.
Lately, where modern offenses spread the ball all over the field, exercise RPOs, and make use of choice routes, "#1 receiver" sometimes gets used synonymously with "X" or "Boundary" receiver, the guy who stretches the field vertically and loosens things up for the intermediate routes across the middle.
Sometimes people use "#1 receiver" to mean guy who gets the most targets, whether or not he threatens downfield. By that definition, Kelce has been KC's #1 receiver since they traded Tyreek Hill in the 2022 off season - but even before that, Tyreek kind of made his living 5-10 yds from the LOS and turned them into 17 yd gains with YAC, so he got the #1 share of the targets but wasn't that prototypical boundary/field stretcher guy.
Think I covered it and if people disagree I feel total certainty they will Let Me Know
Good answer. So the emphasis on a #1 WIDE receiver may be misplaced.
-
What I’m getting from my question is you don’t really need a #1 wide receiver, just a guy that teams have to account for more and that can be relied on to make catches. I think that guy for us is Kincaid.
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, Bangarang said:
You know what a #1 receiver is without having it defined for you. This is like asking what a franchise QB is and saying we could get by with a guy like Tyrod because Nick Foles won a SB at one point.
Nope. If I knew I wouldn’t ask the question.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Einstein said:
Yes, by virtue of what it is, non-experts who spend considerable time doing their homework can guess at nearly the same rate that “experts” do.
Keeping in mind that “experts” are just normal people like the non-experts, except due to connections they are able to be paid for it.
No. In general experts are experts because they have pursued specific training and education to their area and spend years in the field doing the work. The connection thing is silly.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, MasterStrategist said:
Agree on 1st part, as my post stated.
The 2nd half, I also discussed, just think it's a BIG risk to count on Hamler. His past issues with soft tissue injuries are a major concern. I'm not doubting Beane when he says that KJ has been working hard to correct that, but some of it is genetic. Again possible but big risk.
Yes, we saw little of Shorter. I think he's a possible WR4, but safer play is having him as a WR5/6. He missed all but preseason as a rookie, from a physical standpoint. He was a raw player coming out, I'm sure he studied the mental aspects in season while rehabbing. There is hope but there's also a chance he flames out.
Hollins has shown what he is, IMO that's a WR5 at best. 1 injury away from him being our WR3 is a very scary thought.
I fully understand that this will be a "committee approach" this year, as far as receiving threats. I have no issue with that, actually think we could be better for it.
But our WR4 needs to be a complementary weapon and relied on as a reasonably solid boundary WR/downfield threat. We have Coleman and the unknown of Shakir outside, but who has shown some poor body control on deeper pass game/shorter arms make it difficult as well. Shakir is still a solid player, but downfield attack is not his strong suit.
IMO, Beane would be playing a very risky game by not finding a vet WR4 post June 1. Let Shorter compete with Hollins for WR5, and all others can fight it out for WR6.
Part of your concern may be allayed by playing a lot of two TE sets.
-
1
-
-
Incomplete and will be so for several years.
-
Transition is not synonymous with decline, nor rebuild.
-
2
-
-
Just now, MasterStrategist said:
Beane definitely made it clear to tamper expectations on a trade, and clearly said post June 1st that they'll have "some room" to make a move or two.
With Solomon drafted, I definitely feel a little better and liked him as a prospect.
I'm with ya, hoping for a DE and WR post June 1. Ogbah and Gallup are my guesses. Ogbah on the decline, but can still be a DE4, and Gallup on a 1yr prove it deal.
Casey Toohill signed for $1m, I'm expecting he's in competition for DE4/5, with Kingsley, Solomon, and a potential FA.
Concern at WR is finding a WR4 for the boundary/can be successful downfield. Beane will be playing with fire risking that on Hollins, Shorter, Cephus, Hamler, and Shavers. I think Hollins is a decent WR5, due to ST value but I'd like to see Shorter get that role and for us to keep one of above or UDFA as Wr6.
Gallup, Chark, MVS can all fill that WR4 role. Just think Gallup makes most sense on a prove it deal, but if Beane can get either under the cap issues then I'm for it. These guys aren't expected to bring more than 300-400 yards but give us depth at a spot where we just have a rookie to depend on.
They might bring in another guy after June 1 at WR, but Beane was pretty clear they’re not trading for a guy. I think the # 4 guy is on the roster. If Hamler can get over his injuries he’s the most logical choice. Shorter never really got a chance to show much last year. Then you have Hollins.
-
There can only be upside to this. There is no downside to guys getting to know each other and working on things, unless Josh tears an ACL or something.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Herc11 said:
A better term would be #1 target. As we know, Brady had Gronk and Pat had Kelce. They aren't WR, but they give the same benefit as a #1 WR.
A true #1 target is someone another team has to scheme for. This person is open even when they are not open. Contested catches, reliable week in and week out. Routinely beats their coverage. They are going to get you 1200+ yards and ~10 TDs a year.
Sounds reasonable. Maybe Kincaid is that guy. Maybe Coleman is the guy who gets those contested catches.
-
1
-
-
I keep reading how we have to go find a true #1 WR. That begs the question: what is a #1 WR? A guy that makes X catches a year? Demands double teams? What?
I ask because the team we keep trying to beat, the team who has won several Lombardis in recent years, doesn’t seem to have a #1 WR. So how do they win? They have a #1 TE. Does that count? Is so than can Kincaid count as ours?
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Buffalo Boy said:
Covid time must have been tough for you to witness😒
My honest sympathy
Wasn’t much fun
-
1
-
-
28 minutes ago, Einstein said:
This is again anecdotal with no actual evidence.
How many of Brandts prognostications failed as a percentage basis compared to NFL front offices? Because NFL front offices fail up to 70% of the time as well.
You keep arguing about things being anecdotal. There’s an easy solution to your complaint: go find the data.
You also claim that non-experts can do as good a job as non-experts. There are a huge number of variables in trying to prognosticate how an NFL draft pick will play out, some within the player’s control and some not. The tremendous number of variables makes a good draft being where 50% of guys selected make it. It is hubris that some think they are better than an NFL office with access to scouting reports, film, information from college coaches, personal interviews with players and such. Occasionally some will luck out and pick better (and of course that can’t be decided for years after a draft vs. some of the hysteria we’ve seen here the past 24 hours).
The idea that non-experts are as good as experts is somewhat trivial when talking about football. It becomes a real issue when talking about more important subject matter. Like during Covid when I had hairdressers on Facebook trying to tell me, a scientist, they know more about viruses. The advent of social media and with it people thinking their opinion is as valid as the next guy, and where actual expertise is ignored, is dangerous.
-
3
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:
Thanks. Looks like for Josh and the league in general it’s less than once a game.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Logic said:
Thanks to all the posters so far who took this thread in the spirit of fun in which it was intended and contributed your alternate draft.
Fascinating to read everyone's preferences.
I applaud your idea. I just wouldn’t have a clue because I don’t follow college football
-
Just now, Matt_In_NH said:
I agree with your concept here except that you have access to a large chunk of data online from people who are educated so you can kind find consensus among "experts" which is what most do who complain. My only point is you have access to more than just a tiny fraction but you don't have conversations, background, medical, ex coach conversations etc. You do have all tape, measurables' etc. When Beane chooses someone other than I expect, for instance Coleman when many thought he was much further down, my reaction is to ask myself what information did Beane and his staff have to make that choice over the others instead of "OMG how dumb". People think very highly of their internet research.
You’ve hit on what I think is an important point. The immeasurables. Beane really went after guys with leadership qualities this year as an example.
-
With so many worried about the top pick’s 40 time, and who on the team can “take the top” off the opponent’s defense, I’d love to find info on just how many times Josh actually threw the ball 40 yards or more lasts year. Or how many times in the league total. Anybody have a resource? Just relying on memory it’s not very many times.
-
19 minutes ago, soflabillsfan1 said:
The username changes but the poor takes didn't. Glad to see you're still kicking.
Poor takes? I’m the voice of experience and wisdom!
-
1
-
What's the point of this team's philosophy?
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
When he came out everyone said the knock on him was that he wasn’t accurate, that he could never learn to be accurate, that you can’t teach accuracy, and so on. Anyone watching him knows that’s wrong. He puts it right on guys, and does so with speed, on intermediate routs, our routes, and such.