Shaw66

Absolutely. LOL! I love the font! We don't agree. I agree about using some of those 5th and 6th rounders, but that's not getting the Bills up far enough for one of the studs.

I don't study the draft, at all. I just watched some of the Troy Franklin video. I know it's highlights and all, but I like his hands catching, and I like how he tracks the ball. If the Bills can get that kind of talent at 28 (or even trading down and still get him), I don't see much reason to trade up more than 3-4 spots for any other receiver.

There is NO player other than a QB that I would trade all those picks for. None. The 28th, 60th and 2025 1st should be three starters, and 128-160-163 collectively have a good chance of being a fourth starter. There is practically no way that the guy you get at 9 could be more valuable than the combined value of four starters.

Maybe they do have the assets, but there's no question it will cost a lot. The question is whether the difference between the top three guys and the six through tenth guys is worth what it will cost. You might pay $5000 more for the custom interior in your Mercedes, but would you pay $50,000 more?

No, that's now what I'm saying, although I am in part. Teams paid big dollars for running backs for several years after it started becoming apparent that the best running backs just weren't worth it. It took teams a while to catch on. I think you'll start to see that happen to receivers. We all were startled when the Chiefs were willing to unload Hill instead of pay him; I think the Chiefs were ahead of the curve. Everyone seems to think this is a deep receiver class. If that's true, and if I'm right, guys drafted in the second and third round will make splashes around the league this season and next. If that happens, would you rather that Beane (1) traded back and picked up a good receiver and a second pick or (2) traded up for a guy who was only marginally better, giving up draft capital along the way? I would trade back. And what will that mean? It will mean that you don't have to spend big, either in dollars or draft capital, to get a receiver who gets the job done, because if you're running a good offense, there are plenty of guys you can plug into it, and you have a good chance of finding a Deebo (2), a Kupp (3), or a St. Brown (4) outside of round 1. Now, there's one big caveat, and that is that this thinking is correct (or at least I think it's correct) only until the defenses adjust, as they always do, and the passing games that the best teams run become less effective. Offense will then have to adjust, as they always do, and maybe that adjustment will change the value, again, of receivers. Maybe the new defenses will begin to shut down the short to medium range game, and maybe offenses will counter by putting two or three burners on the field all the time and returning to a quick-strike offense. If that happens, there'll be a real premium on speed. In the meantime, however, teams seem to be valuing someone other than the classic stud #1 guy.

This is really good. The last sentence particularly. The Bills need a couple of players to rise up and make big plays at the right times. We hoped Diggs would be that guy, and we hoped Miller would be. Miller still has a chance. I don't see Oliver or Rousseau being the guys. They make good plays, but they aren't big play guys. Frankly, I think the guy may be Milano and Bernard together. McDermott's defenses dominated from the linebacker position. One linebacker alone can't dominate, but two can. That's what McDermott had in Carolina. The thing that bothers me most about McBeane is that they love the very good guys who are steady. That's Oliver and Rousseau. I think they need to have at least a guy or two who make such good plays that you're willing to have them be just average some of the time. Not disappear, but be just average.

I agree, but I think what you describe is the reality of the NFL. In terms of talent, the winning formula is to get a great QB and then fill up the roster with good football players. If you're doing the job right, you add a few studs to the lineup, but it almost doesn't matter what position those studs play. On the Chiefs, they have Kelce and Jones. On another team, it can be guys at other positions. Since I don't think it makes sense to make a big trade up into the top 10 for anyone other than a QB, it seems to me that that makes a trade back from 28 the smart move. Once you have your QB, the object is to get as many good football players possible, and if a trade back from 28 can get you a second- and a third-round pick, well, two opportunities at a good football player is better than one. You need some studs, for sure, but I think it's a mistake to chase after them. Diggs fell to the Bills easily enough, and Miller did, too. Eventually a guy they draft will emerge, too.

I don't agree with you, but that's okay. I think receivers are becoming a dime a dozen and you just don't see it yet. In fact, you go in the opposite direction - that receivers are becoming a need like a franchise QB, or at least people here seem to talk that way. I agree, they do talk that way, and I think that perception is incorrect. One way I think you can see what I'm talking about is those three receivers you named who have gotten big contracts - St. Brown, Kupp, and Samuel. They are exactly the right examples. They got drafted in the fourth, third, and second rounds, respectively. That means that these three NFL stars at the position, three guys who at least in terms of money are among the most valuable players at their position, all were viewed as ordinary prospects coming out of college, and that in each case, there were several other guys whom the NFL GMs thought were better prospects to build their teams around. (Note that Shakir is another one - a guy who seems to be developing a more significant role in the offense than his draft status would suggest.) Why has this happened? Because what NFL teams need at receiver has changed from five years ago, just like the change that began at running back maybe 15 years ago. Those guys are getting money from their teams that KC didn't give to Tyreek Hill. Why didn't the Chiefs pay Hill? Well, I wasn't in the room, but I think it was because they could see that the colleges were turning out a lot of guys who didn't have Hill's speed but who were fast enough, guys who could be plugged into an effective offense at a fraction of the cost of Tyreek Hill. In other words, they could see that, given what they wanted from receivers, receivers were a dime a dozen. I think that is exactly why Beane seemed to be saying the other day that he wasn't concerned about the receiver position and that he would love to have a true #1 but it isn't necessary. We can argue about what exactly he meant, but I think what he meant is that he doesn't need a Justin-Jefferson-type game changer. I've lived my whole life as a Bills fan thinking the Bills need a stud #1, and that was probably true for several decades. It certainly was true when the Bills were going to the Super Bowl. I'm pretty sure it's not so true any longer. I think a stud QB, good starting role players, and good coaching is what's needed.

I really think it's a fool's errand to expect that superior talent can over come mediocre coaching. I think it's a strategy that works, at best, for a year or so, but then you're quickly stuck again with talent that matches every other team. This happens because of the draft, the cap, and free agency. Every team's roster turns over quickly. I think the average is something like a third of your roster changes from year to year. Now, granted, that's weighted toward the lower end of the roster, but there are significant departures almost annually, and certainly over three years. QB is the only position that doesn't turn over. If you have your starter, you keep him. Left tackle is next. Because of the roster turnover, it's a coaches' league. And because it's a coaches' league, you're always going to be in a hole if you don't have quality coaches. As I said yesterday, Dorsey was a serious mistake. Daboll was decent, and we'll see about Brady, but the Bills essentially wasted two seasons by letting Dorsey run the offense. If you believe, as I do, that Reid's talent at designing and implementing offense is a major part of the Chiefs' success, I think you also can see how unlikely it is that the Bills could accumulate so much talent that they could overcome what Reid does. His offensive success essentially means that he makes every player on offense better, and it isn't possible to upgrade every position on defense so that the talent of your players overcome the advantage they have because of coaching. The Bills need a really good OC, and they need to hold on to him for several seasons. I think Brady could be the guy, but I don't know. This season will tell us a lot. The Bills will have the offensive roster they want - yes, even at wide receiver - they'll have an offensive line they have confidence in, and of course they have the QB. It's very much up to Brady, and a part of that is driven by the leadership he gets from McDermott. I agree about the second, not the first. He said it his presser - it's no fun sitting in on the first night of the draft with no pick. My own rule is that major trade ups in the first round are prudent only for a QB - no other position is worth the draft capital it costs.

Of the subject, but I'm amazed that people seem to have amnesia about 2022. Playing in a rotation on the Bills' defensive line, he had 8 sacks in less than 11 games, and he was pretty much the same disruptive force he'd been in previous years. He was on a better pace than 2021. And, by the way, in 2021 he had four sacks in four playoff games. I think Miller is an unknown quantity going into this season, but I will not be surprised, not surprised at all, if he has double digit sacks. For the same reason everyone here says, year after year, that Allen doesn't have enough weapons.

All thoughtful stuff. Thanks. Basically, we don't agree, and I'm good with that. I like your draft strategy, but I seriously doubt that that strategy is going to land a talent who will transform the passing game. I doubt the Bills are getting 1000 yards out the guy they take at 28 or early in the second. The difference between you and me is that you seem to think they will. You're essentially saying take 2 of the top 10 and one will work out. Okay, but I doubt it. I'm saying that they only need to take one, because they only need him to be a 600-800 yard guy. As for Samuel, I don't think they think he's the gadget guy the other guys couldn't become. He's had, I think, a 1000 yard season. He's a gadget guy like Deebo. They want him running routes, which he's good at, and they want to line him up in the backfield because he can actually take handoffs and follow blocks AND he can run routes out of the backfield. But this, too, is just you and I reading different things into what Beane said. I won't argue with you about how some teams got good in the recent past. You may be right. However, I will point out that the Bengals got good by landing two, not one but two, wideouts who are as good or better than the best single wideout the Bills will find by Friday night. And that model hasn't worked so well for the past couple of years. I like you comment about McDermott. I think he's a great, great coach, but I agree that he isn't a defensive mastermind. Might have grown into one if he stayed as a DC, but his skill at leading men meant he was destined to be a HC. I think he'll always have a really good defense, but because it may only rarely be great, it's important that he has an OC who is special. I wasn't a huge Daboll fan, and as I said, Dorsey was not at all the guy. I won't make any judgments about Brady until December and January.

Well, I don't agree with you or Happy about what the Bills need, but I am not going to be disappointed tomorrow. Beane and McDermott know what they want, and they have a plan. They will have a receiver by Friday night, and that receiver will be a success. He will be a success because the Bills will need him to get only 600-800 yards, and there apparently are a lot of guys in the draft who will be able to do that. They'll do it because they won't be asked to do too much, just run the routes and catch the ball when you're open. Someone else - Kincaid, Shakir, or Samuel - will go over 1000. Or maybe it'll be the rookie. It might even be two guys going over 1000. I'm confident it will work, assuming Brady can deliver the kind of offense that's expected.

I hear you, but I don't think you're correct about this. The commonly used phrase is "It's a copy cat league." It is, and there's a reason for that. The reason is it's very hard to win in the league, and it's very hard to be good at offense, because the good defenses know how to stop all but the best offenses. It's natural, therefore, that teams will try to mimic what the good teams are doing. Nobody's mimicking the Cardinals. We've seen the same thing on defense, with everyone going to one and two high safeties all the time to take away the deep ball. McDermott was one of the early proponents, and that's what made the Bills D so tough beginning a few years ago. The defense that everyone has copied is one of the reasons we've seen this move to a different style of passing attack. I keep saying that the signal was that the Bills went after Samuel. He's one of the best players in the league playing the style that the good offenses have (other than the very best, who are on those good teams we're talking about). Getting Samuel when they already had Shakir and Kincaid tells something about what the Bills intend to do. Now, I hear you about Brady. It's one thing to be able to copy the style that others are playing, it's another thing to be able copy it and then innovate from week to week so that your receivers are attacking different defenses in different ways. I don't know if Brady is that guy. We'll find out. Going your own way, what you suggest the Bills should do, isn't a good strategy. If you don't have good coaching, which is your premise, then you can't expect your coaches to create a passing offense that works as well as the best passing games. In addition, the reason it's a copy cat league is that the innovators are finding the only way to succeed, and it works only until the defenses adjust, at which point it's up to the offensive innovators again. The Bills can't get a top-tier receiver without spending an enormous amount of draft capital, but even if they could, top-tier talent won't save mediocre coaching. For all his trials and tribulations on defense, I think the worst decision McDermott has made was investing in Dorsey. He truly was mediocre or worse, and that hurt the Bills for the past two seasons. The shortest route to an championship caliber offense is to copy the passing schemes of the best teams and then let the most physically gifted QB in the league execute it.

And I've been reading posts that Thurman did earlier in this thread, talking about the fact that teams don't do well trading up into the top of the first round. I've often thought that you do it for a QB, but no other position is worth it. One receiver is very rarely as valuable as the three guys you would have drafted if you kept the picks. I mean, if I knew it was Jerry Rice, okay, but Jerry Rice isn't available. In fact, in the modern NFL, Jerry Rice probably isn't as valuable as the real Jerry Rice was.

I think you meant positions, not possessions. Yes, you and I have been saying this for a while. I think the handwriting was on the wall when they got Samuel. And add Kincaid in there. And Cook. They want to put a bunch of guys out there that are interchangeable. I wrote something a few days ago about the fact that McCaffrey is so much more valuable than Saquon. When McCaffrey was in college I just didn't get how good he was. I thought he was a great college player who would stumble in the pros. Well, no. He's great, and he's great because he's good enough to be a good starting running back and (almost) a starting receiver. That's a weapon. Singletary was that kind of back, just not as good. I very much think that body type doesn't determine a valuable receiver. I don't like Metcalf, even though he has one of the all-time great bodies - size and speed. Heart, quickness, change of direction, brains. That's what wins now.

You missed the point. It's not that some guys aren't valuable. Those guys you name are extraordinarily valuable. And they put up nice stats. They just don't fit the stud receiver mold. They aren't tall, they aren't big, and they aren't fast. They have other skills that make that, combined with decent size and speed, makes them valuable. I've been talking to people here about the fact that the typical stud receiver - the big, tall, fast guys - aren't the kind of guys that teams are looking for now. Blazing speed is nice, but not necessary. Size is nice, but not necessary. There are a lot of guys with measurables like Samuel and St. Brown and Kupp, they're all over the place. What teams are looking for is guys with with decent size and speed and who are good scheme fits.

Mikey, I like your point, and I think there is another reason that makes a particular physical type less important than it used to be, and that is scheme. The game has evolved a lot over the last 70 years, and one of the important ways it has evolved is that body type has become less important. In the old days, a split end looked like this and a flanker looked like that. Gary Collins and Paul Warfield, for example. A tight end looked like Ernie Warlick. A tight end like Pete Retzlaff was a real oddity, and the Eagles played him even though he didn't have a body to block like a tight end. The problem with having particular body types for particular positions was that the body type dictated the kinds of plays you could run with the guy. So, for example, the defense always knew where the deep threat on the field was - just find the flanker. You didn't need to worry about the split end going deep, because his body type made him a solid, physical athlete, but not a speedster. So, the game evolved, and the sizes of the players all converged. Now there are a lot guys playing between, say 205 and 240. Linebackers, corners, receivers, running backs. Even some edge players. Why? Because they can do more things, and therefore they and their offense is less predictable. Ideally, every player runs 4.3, but so long as you have several under 4.5, that's good enough to have multiple players who can challenge the defense. So long as you have enough guys in the 220 pound range, you can play as physically as is necessary, at least in the regular season. The more you rely on a stud player, the more predictable your offense is. When you offense is predictable, it's easier to scheme against. By having a lot of guys who are multiple, you are less predictable, and less predictable makes you tougher to stop. I think Lebron and Davis make the Lakers predictable, and that's why they've had so much trouble building a winner around them.

Much tougher jamming a guy on the move. Dolphins started it last season, and others were using it by the end of the season. Just put the guy they want to jam off the line and let him take off laterally before the snap. All of a sudden, the jam gets really difficult, and if you miss, you man is running free in the defensive backfield.

I'm barging in here and not even sure about the details you guys have been talking about, but this point about Kelce is something I've been thinking about lately. Yes, it's true that Kelce is super special, but I think it's important to recognize that he doesn't succeed with physical dominance. He doesn't have great speed, he isn't a great run after catch guy - he isn't extraordinary at breaking tackles. His RAC comes from being wide open. I'm not sure I'd call Kelce a game changer, altho I won't argue that point. What he is is an excellent scheme fit. Kelce is an excellent tight end with good hands and brains, playing in great scheme with a QB who can execute the scheme. The important point for this discussion is brains, scheme, and a QB who executes is what makes a great passing game in the current NFL. I think, in fact, that receivers are becoming a dime a dozen, just like running backs. Successful teams don't need a top-five running back, and I think the passing game already has evolved to the point that they don't need a top-five receiver. I mean, they'll have a guy who is top-five in the stats, but he'll get there by being a scheme fit rather than being a great receiver. I think that's exactly what we've seen in Kansas City. And it's what we've seen in LA and Detroit and SF. The Bills need a wideout, for sure. But I no longer think it's important to have the stud you might find in the top of the draft. There are a lot guys who can become part of an excellent passing attack in Buffalo, probably a half-dozen in the draft, and guys who will be available in September.

This is excellent. Thanks. I think it helps to focus as you've done here. I think what it says is that when McDermott has the kind of athletes he wants (and I'm not talking about stars, I'm talking about smart, aggressive, athletic guys with heart), his defense will be stingy. When he has some stars, it can be tremendous. I think replacing the 2023 versions of Poyer and Hyde won't be too hard, although I think they need to find a starting safety somewhere. Rapp and Edwards might get the job done, but I think they need an upgrade. One thing that went under the radar last week in Beane's presser was his off-hand comment about Miller. He said something about the three defenders recovering from injuries (meaning Bernard, Milano, and Miller), and then quickly corrected himself and said, "two, Miller is fine." I didn't think much of it at the time, but I think that Miller is flying under everyone's radar. Miller is coming back 100%. I know, some people thought he was 100% by the end of last season and that he showed that he just doesn't have it any more, but there's a good chance that opinion is wrong. It's often said that players don't really get back from ACLs until their second season back. If the real Von Miller is back, he alone changes the character of the defense. And, as you say, there will be some names on the roster in September that aren't there today, and among those names will be at least a couple of guys contributing in ways we wouldn't have expected. At this time last year, for example, Rasul Douglas wasn't a consideration.

I think it's a retooling year. To me, rebuilding means creating something new - you built it, and now you're going to build it again. Bills aren't doing that. They're doing what the Patriots did all those years - some guys leave, some new guys come in, the team keeps going. If the retooling doesn't work, then they should consider rebuilding.

What's Super Bowl contention? I'd say a Super Bowl contender is a team that is in the top eight in the league. The top 3 or 4 in each conference have a reasonable shot at winning it. Maybe a team or two more in one conference and a team or two less in the other, depending on which conference is stronger. I think the Bills are a contender. With Allen, plus an offensive line returning, and with a perennial top 10 defense, I think the Bills are clearly there. They will be the favorite to win the division. Yes, yes, I know, Miami this and New York that, but neither is better than Buffalo until they prove it. And, sure the Bills need a receiver, and Milano and Bernard are not back until they're back, and they need an edge, and all that. But that's just life in the NFL - every team has questions this time of year.

You've been beating that horse for a while now. I've already apologized. If you think it was hollow because I don't accept your version of the universe, I'm sorry for that, too, but an apology requires only that I understand that I've made you unhappy, not that internalize your complaint and be eternally remorseful. I think I understand what Beane, McDermott, and Brady are trying to do with the offense, and it makes sense to me. If I were the GM, would I be doing what Beane is doing? I don't know. You would be doing something else. And, frankly, what seems to be bothering you is that I don't buy your argument. I don't buy it simply because I have great respect for expertise, and I value the expertise of successful professionals in their field.

Thanks. That's interesting. One thing about Allen is that he tends to speak in generalities, and in this case, as in many others, neither you nor I can be sure precisely what he means. My take on Allen has been that he is still learning how to process the game and to make high quality decisions, something that both Burrow and Mahomes excel in. Josh has, in my view, been improving year by year, and I think this season or next we will see the full-fledged star, the guy who can manage the game and also make plays like no one else. My take, therefore, has been that he's always been presented with relatively complex pro offense to run and that he just hadn't developed the skills to run it. So, when he wasn't sure what to do, he let his athleticism take over. The coaches may have been okay with that, because his athleticism was so great that it yielded good results. (Compare him to EJ Manuel, for example, who when he wasn't sure let his athleticism take over, but who wasn't nearly as talented as Allen. Pro football moved on from Manuel pretty quickly, but Allen survived because his talent was so great, his coaches have been patient with his execution of the offense.) What you and I don't know is the extent his coaches actually encouraged him to just create when the first or second option wasn't there. Whatever he did five years ago, I don't think they're encouraging him to do it any more. I mean, sure, when plays break down, he's going to scramble and create, but I don't think they want him doing that at a higher percentage than Mahomes does. These are the kind of conversations I would love to sit down and have with Brady or McDermott or Josh, to really understand what they're thinking. What do they think they need to win? Maybe even more than the offense, I'd love to hear McDermott about the defense because, frankly, I'm more puzzled about the defensive philosophy than the offense. That is, the offensive philosophy is, I'm sure, that if the Bills can get five skill players on the field with Allen and get them all to execute, the Bills will have a great offense because Allen gives them one extra skill player compared to virtually every other team. I think McDermott hoped Edmunds was going to be the X-factor, "we-have-him-and-you-don't" guy, but that didn't work. What is that McDermott thinks his going to give him a standout defense?

Sorry to have offended you. I'm not sure what the point is. Yes, I think I'm correct about modern NFL offenses and all, and yes, they are thoughts I've developed from listening to others and observing how the Bills are being built. Yes, there are some things I read into what Beane says, but I think they are fair and logical. Like Brady also must agree that they don't need a true #1. I don't see how it could be any other way. As I keep saying, I don't know what's going to happen, who the Bills are going to add to the receiver, or what the strategy they Bills will employ on offense. However, my observations suggest to me the things I've said. Again, sorry you're upset about what you seem to think is my unwillingness to own up to something. I'm not trying argue with you. I'm just saying what I see.