Shaw66

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.

I think everything you say here is correct. I've been saying for months that they Bills one or two more marquee players, almost any position. They need a couple of guys (besides Allen) who makes some plays, just once in a while, that no one else makes. And it certainly would be fine with me if he turned out to be a receiver. I have a slightly different take on McDermott and the postseason. I think McBeane have done exactly what they said they were going to do, which is something that they will build a team that continues to get better until it wins a Super Bowl and then stays at that very high level. I think McDermott thinks about it every day, and he plans to build core competencies that become part of the culture. Of course, they aren't done, but they aren't just executing over again what it took for them to get good in the first place. They're building, always focused on their goal. I have great confidence that they'll succeed. Might not, of course, but I don't get the feeling not succeeding is an option for them. The night Hamlin fell to the ground, one of the ESPN talking heads, maybe an hour into trying to cover what was happening, mentioned that this is why pursuing your degree and the whole college experience is important, because you never know when your career might be cut short. A former player said that when he was in college, football was his life. Someone told him that he needed a Plan B. The former player said there is no Plan B, there is only Plan A, and if you have a Plan B, you probably aren't making it. McBeane have no Plan B.

I say this from time to time: My perspective about the Bills is I listen to Beane and McDermott, I watch what they do, and then I try to understand what that tells me about how they're thinking about the game. To the extent I think I figure it out, I then think about whether it makes sense - not whether it's right or wrong, just whether it makes sense. If it makes sense to me, then I'm happy and I wait for the games with an understanding of what it will look like if it works. If it doesn't make sense, than I'm anxious and I'm prepared for mediocre results. I will readily admit that since McBeane arrived, it's pretty much all made sense to me. I think they are executing at a very level a methodology and plans to build a continuously successful team that wins Super Bowls. I think that time is coming.

This is excellent. Thanks for taking the time to talk about the issue that way. All of what you say may be correct. It's all part of the evolution. I will say a couple of things. As to needing a guy who can force a safety or two deep to create the space for the others to work, that's true, but I think what we're seeing is that there are a lot of guys like Shakir, who have excellent underneath skills but with enough speed to get deep when the opening is there. Remember when it used to be amazing if a guy ran 3.4? It seems like every time you turn around there's another guy who's sub 3.4. I think the current operating system for these passing offense is to be so good as to force the safeties down and still good enough to be able to attack deep because the safeties are compromised. Tyreek Hill is the interesting opposite example - a guy who's deep speed is blinding and who will eat you up in the underneath game, if that's you give him. Yes, either philosophy will work, but it seems like underneath guys with enough speed are currently the offenses to beat. I literally don't know anything about any of the guys in the draft, but I think what you say is the big question for scouts and GMs. Is this guy a one-trick pony playing against weaker competition in college, and if he is, can he learn to do the other things we need him to do? You seem to suggest, and I have no reason not to believe it, that at least the big three have what it takes to play however the game dictates. In the case of the Bills, one other thing I've been thinking is that if, as he says, Beane doesn't feel it's necessary to get a stud number one, I think that also means McDermott and Brady don't either. I mean, one might expect that Brady, having been the OC for Justin Jefferson and Ja'Maar Chase, would be all in favor of the stud #1 theory. And one might expect that sometime while he was the interim OC, the three of them (Brady and McBeane) would have discussed that question of current football philosophy. I don't think Brady would have gotten the OC job if he said he needed a stud, unless McBeane agreed. I think the Bills are all-in on an offense that attacks all over the field with five superior, multi-skilled players. Samuel, Shakir, and (I think) an athletic rookie all will take defenses deep but will be nightmares underneath, even Kincaid to some extent. Cook will present similar problems. Knox will provide just enough support on the blocking side and be a receiving threat in his own right. In some ways, they'll be receivers who play like McDermott wrestled - just intensely competitive athletes, all over the field, making every play they can possibly make - catching passes, making runs, blocking, everything.

The thing about being a dinosaur is, well, dinosaurs are dead. They lost the Darwinian wars. Football evolves faster than the species do. The game keeps changing. Nobody is looking for Bronco Nagurski any more, because the game has moved on. Well, the Chiefs letting Tyreek Hill go was a pretty clear sign that the game, for now, anyway, has moved on from the big deep threat. People talk about getting Metcalf. Metcalf is a dinosaur. (Hill isn't, because he's always been useful in the short game, too.) It seems to me that when you have four of the acknowledged great offensive minds in the game (Reid, Shanahan, McVay, and LaFLeur) all playing the game, successfully, without a classic #1 guy, yes, you might be a dinosaur. Let me back off, just a bit. I don't know. I don't know how to build a successful NFL offense. I don't know what skills it takes, and which players are the right fit. I just watch and try to understand what teams are doing, and then I try to draw conclusions about it. What I hear from the commentators is that all the defenses are playing one- and two-high safeties to take the deep ball away, and what I see is the best offenses attacking with waves of multi-talented skill players, all orchestrated by great QBs who can throw and who can manage the offense. So, when I hear Beane say he doesn't necessarily need the classic #1, it makes sense to me.

Thanks. I only listened once, but I think he said when he got to Buffalo, he was coached to run. I don't think he said that's what he was coached to do in the more recent years. For the past few years, he certainly hasn't played like he was told to run if his first or second read wasn't there. He was playing out of the pocket for as long as he could.

I get this argument from time to time. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. However, once Beane says what he is thinking, i don't see much point in arguing. I don't care much if you think the Bills need this or that if Beane doesn't agree with you. It is just an academic argument. And i don't have any interest in pretending that i know better than he does.

Yes, I believe. I've never found him to be not believable. This tear's can obsession with wideouts is like last year's with middle linebacker. I don't think the fans understand what the team needs, and Beane does.

Lok, you can argue with me all you want, but what I'm telling you is what I think the Bills are doing, and what in fact Beane TOLD us he's doing. He doesn't see a #1 guy as a necessity. He just doesn't. He wants a receiving corps like the 49ers, and the Lions, and the Chiefs. Yes, Kelce is a star #1, but that's an offense that spreads the ball around to all the receivers, and one guy gets 1500 yards. That's exactly what Beane and McDermott want. Beane has told us he doesn't need a classic #1. Argue with it all you like, but I'm just the messenger. As for the cap hit of signing Aiyuk and the potential for failure, sure, he can get injured, but that's a risk every team takes with every high paid guy they sign. The Bills are going to have SOME guys with big contracts. You might not want it be Aiyuk, but there will be some. And those guys might get injured. Aiyuk isn't a higher risk than any of the others. Rousseau may get a big contract soon, and he might get injured. And again, Beane is going to get the pieces he thinks he needs wherever he finds them. He doesn't care, not very much, whether he drafts them or they are free agents. So, I don't think he's getting Aiyuk, and I'm not even saying I would do it if I were he. All I'm saying is that a move to get a star player would not be all that unusual for Beane. He did it for Diggs and he did for Miller. He'll do it again before he's done in Buffalo.

Where do I send my bid?