Shaw66
-
Posts
8,897 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
14 minutes ago, skibum said:
Not likely. Josh always gives us a puncher's chance, but make no mistake - This is a rebuilding year.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
33 minutes ago, Beck Water said:
I'd be happy to accept your apology and I'm not gonna carry a bone or beat a dead horse, except if you're "not sure what the point is", it seems like "form without function".
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.
-
6 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:
But he specifically said in his first years (plural) in Buffalo he was coached to run while talking about his excitement of a scheme by Joe Brady to get him more outlets on the field in the passing game. He may not have directly stated he was coached to run in recent years, but at best it sounds like he believed the passing scheme itself didn't provide enough realistic opportunities in the passing game, forcing him to run.
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?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Beck Water said:
Here's the thing though, Shaw. And I intend this respectfully, because I do respect you as a poster.
You made a whole long post. It's not just about what Beane says. It's about what, in your opinion, Beane means by what he says.
I'll bold.
I took the time and trouble to ask questions, give perspective from what I see, etc etc and you come back with this:
Look, you just wrote a whole screed about YOUR OPINION. Not limited to what Beane said, but this whole screed about "the reality of 2024 NFL offense" and how a number 1 isn't necessary any more", on and on and on. YOUR OPINION, after telling me I "misperceive the reality of 2024 offense"
But when I tried to have a discussion about that and bring up examples - you side-step discussion saying "you're just the messenger" and there's no point in arguing, you're just telling me what Beane told us he's doing -
No, Man.
That's not what you're doing. You went way beyond what Beane said, into inferring your beliefs about why he said it, how modern NFL offenses operate or want to operate, etc etc. You're giving your opinion about the reality of 2024 NFL offense and what it needs, using SF as an example, which is actually IMO an anomolous offense, one of 2. You're stating that Jefferson isn't multiple and isn't as valuable as guys who are multiple - on and on. You're entitled to your opinion.
You're also entltled to decline to discuss your opinion with me, or with anyone.
But be honest about what you're doing. Otherwise what you're saying is "I can assert whatever I want to assert about NFL offenses in 2024 and it's inarguable because BEANE SAYS."
That's baloney. Sorry, that's what it is.
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.
-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:
So, I hope you're right. My fear, I guess, is that they have an excellent formula for winning in the regular season, but it falls short in the post-season. I know they were bedeviled with injury last year, and still came close. A number of folks have opined that they need more elite playmakers on both sides of the ball. It doesn't have to be an enormous amount, but one more on each side of the ball would help a lot.
A player like Kincaid or Cook might grow into that player. When Milano is healthy, he's borderline that player.
You can find that player in the draft without trading up into the top 10. Anyway, I'm putting some markers down on Thomas, McConkey, and Legette. Those are the WRs I like best outside the top 3, and I'd be happy with one or two of them. There are other positions that need addressing, and I'm sure Beane has multiple strategies based on how the draft plays out.
I still expect to be a Super Bowl contender next year. I do not see it as an inevitable down year, though it is a reset of sorts with all the veteran turnover.
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.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Dr. Who said:
That is definitely the argument from authority. I like Beane. I'm not against him, but I think you are giving him too much credit. Some Socratic irony is needed, though, of course, it's just my opinion.
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.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Dr. Who said:
So, it seems to me that teams may be playing that one-and two-high safety defense because they could potentially be threatened by a deep threat. If that disappears enough from the arsenal of weapons and strategic tactics of OCs, the defense will adapt to whatever offense is dominant.
I don't know either, precisely, where the game is evolving, but I can only repeat my prejudice that having something akin to a traditional WR1 helps the entire WR room. Yet if one draws back from that, it's still largely a matter of semantics, imo, because I still don't think trying the "new" approach means you can dismiss the advantages of having better players at the WR position. I don't think it means having solid pass catchers with more modest ability is sufficient.
Let's grant provisionally that the current offenses are now going to emphasize moving pieces, those "multi-skilled" players you talk about, who are they? Does it mean getting MHJ or Nabers or Odunze is less important, or does it mean that their skills will be plugged into the new formula, and the superior talent plays out differently in terms of tactics, but recurs in terms of the better WRs still giving an edge to the team that has them? Maybe somehow this will result in the WR position being devalued somewhat akin to what has happened to RB. I am skeptical, but maybe so.
Regardless, Beane may see Kincaid as emerging as a significant threat. That's possible, and it wouldn't shock me. I advocated for drafting him last year with that hope. I'll be disappointed if Beane is content to go with a late round 2 WR to be the main piece in filling the WR room. I think it would be a big mistake. I've already written numerous posts on the fellas I think he should go get. Whatever happens, I'll root for Beane to be right and for the Bills to flourish.
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.
-
2
-
2
-
-
14 hours ago, Dr. Who said:
That is a popular strategy of late. I am not as confident in the Green Bay model. I'd still rather get a WR1. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it. Anyway, I'm not necessarily arguing you have to trade up for one of the big 3, or even for Thomas, though I'd like it if they got him. I do think they need two WRs early. Folks want to try something else, that's fine. I'm just stating my preference. I like McConkey. I think he can be the next Diggs. He's not Diggs. He won't have the exact vertical game, but he's silky smooth, snaps off routes, and is not a gritty slot. That is a misnomer. He's faster than many seem to think. And I think he's a volume receiver year one.
Then I'd like Thomas, or Mitchell, or Legette for the second early receiver. Maybe that can't be done. We might not have the picks or the opportunity to make that happen, but I would pursue trying to make it so. I don't know if that is a GB WR room or not, but if you mean wait and take a shot on Rice and McCaffrey, etc., I think that is too low an investment. It might work, but I think you're still more likely to hit with early round picks. (I like Rice and McCaffrey, btw.)
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.
-
57 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:
Shaw, listen to Allen’s PC the other day. In fact, skip to the last few minutes he talks about Joe Brady and what he's excited about.
Allen directly says he was coached previously to run. It's revealing. Go listen because it completely contradicts this belief.
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.
-
11 minutes ago, Beck Water said:
Well, that's fine, but if you believe Beane and had a whole long post advancing arguments as to why he might be right, isn't it then appropriate for others (like me) to debate your arguments, and not side-step behind "I'm just the messenger, argue with it all you like"?
You're entitled to just be the messenger and not asked to defend what you present (because, messenger)
You're entitled to believe Beane and present arguments you believe support what he says
"either or not both"
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.
-
2 hours ago, Beck Water said:
So let me ask you this: Do you believe him? Because that's really what I'm trying to discuss. It seemed as though you believe him and were advancing arguments as to why you believe that to be true.
If you're just the messenger, then of course, there's no point in arguing, but that seems like a segue to much of the post I responded to. It seemed like something you believed, and were offering arguments to back up your belief.
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.
-
10 minutes ago, Beck Water said:
Well, I don't see it that way, obviously, though there probably is more element of that than I'd prefer to acknowledge. Here's what I think you're missing:
Yes, a draft pick might go wrong. In fact, statistically, something like 30-50% of first round picks do go wrong, in the sense that they just don't develop into quality NFL players, let alone Superstars. And that hurts the team that year, maybe for the next 2 years, in the form of taking up space on the roster that could be occupied by someone more productive. There's a bit of "opportunity cost' there. And if the team trades up - there's the opportunity cost of the extra draft picks, which, to get into the top half of the draft, could be substantial.
A player such as Aiyuk has shown he can play at an NFL level, so barring injury, the risk of a trade for him going wrong in the sense of not landing a guy who can actually play (as with trading for Diggs) is much lower. But he's going to demand a large chunk of cap space, such that the "opportunity cost" if he is injured or for some reason doesn't work out for the duration of his huge contract, goes far beyond his spot on the roster. It not only means the lost opportunity represented by the draft picks we gave up for him, but the lost opportunity to re-sign some of our own talented players or to recruit FA because he's taking up so much cap. It's even higher than the cost of drafting a #1.
What I really want, of course, is for Beane and his group to have such good scouting that they can identify a potential #1 talent within easy reach of our #28 pick up or down, and then if he misses, to keep taking reasonably high value draft shots year after year until he hits.
This is very eloquent, but I'd like to know who are these "several of the best" offenses that operated without a "true #1"? Otherwise I risk talking past you. I would argue that the 49ers are a "different cat", in that they (like the Ravens) are a run-first team with a very even run/pass split (50% run for the '9ers, 52% for the Ravens. Now maybe Brady sees the Bills becoming one of those teams, but if so - we're way underinvested in RB, and way overinvested in a very talented passing QB. So I would say perhaps that wouldn't be the best use of Josh Allen's prime years. And I would also say, Christian McCaffery is a unicorn.
As far as "guys who are multiple", I would agree that guys who can line up at different positions and run different routes are valuable, but I think you might be confusing ability to do this, with equal skill at all aspects of doing this. It's true that Shakir and Samuel *can* line up outside and run downfield routes, but it's not the role Shakir has the best body type for. It's not Samuel's best skill. His career year to date was, I believe, 74% from the slot. Cook has run a few routes a la Thurman Thomas and looked good at times, but with 11% drops on 54 targets, I think he has a bit to prove as a reliable receiving target. Kincaid is the biggest dark horse. I don't know whether the Bills think he can run downfield routes (he did in college IIRC). They used him very close to the LOS last season with an average 5 YBC.
(By the way, Jefferson has for several years been a very multiple receiver. He's talked about this in interviews. It's how he went from 88 to 128 receptions and from 1400 to 1800 yds. And I think 30 of 30 GMs who don't have Jefferson or Chase on their roster would sign up for that PDQ)
So...the Bills have on the roster right now, 4 guys who excel on the short/intermediate routes and from the slot, and Mack Hollins. To be sure we're on the same page, by "true #1", what I believe someone like Greg Cosell means, is a guy who can stretch the field as an X, an outside or boundary receiver. He can uncover consistently >10 yds from the LOS and force the other team to account for him in their scheme with safety help over the top, giving the underneath guys space in which to operate. He is usually a larger guy and can bring in contested catches down the field. He's not necessarily the guy who gets the most touches or the most targets, though. He's the guy whose primary skill is the downfield threat (though of course it's a plus if he can line up all over).
I think as a defensive-minded coach, McDermott would tell you that an offense is much harder to defend when they force the defenders to cover the whole field. And right now, the Bills do not have starting quality guy who can play outside and win downfield, either by getting open downfield or hauling in contested catches on a regular basis. And that's what the Bills need. This isn't some keyboard hallucination of mine, by the way - all over the board, folks who know something are pointing this out as a gap, as are media guys I respect for their football acumen such as Greg Cosell and Lance Zierlein.
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?
-
3
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:
I wouldn't say take it with a grain of salt per se, but I phrase it more as not to completely rule out a big trade up. I think Beane is being very authentic when loathing about giving up future first rounders. He went into detail on when we knew we would be trading up to get Josh Allen that he went out of his way to make sure he had the assets prior to avoid giving up future first rounders.
But...he did also make clear if there is a deal that makes sense, he would include next years first, so its not off the table. The take away for me is NOT that he won't at all do it, but that he doesn't seem to be actively looking to make a trade into the top 10 happen like a lot of people think he is. He will however listen to offers and give them consideration, but the main issue is that teams picking that high don't generally want to move all the way down to 28 as I assure you there are no teams who have 28 first round graded players in this draft. So they go from an elite prospect, to risking not even getting a first round graded player at 28.
So that begs the question...what kind of comp is it going to take to make a team give up on an elite talent? Popular choice is people citing Chicago only have 4 picks...well if we are trading to 9, then at least one of the big 3 are still on the board. For Chicago to give up an elite WR prospect to pair with their rookie QB just to move back to 28 is a big ask. They aren't going to give it away cheap just to add some mediocre picks, they would just take Odunze or one of the other top graded players at another position like Bowers or someone on the OL/DL.
And quite frankly, Bears are going to have a lot of suitors for pick 9 between picks 11 and 20 where they would probably feel more comfortable trading back to. Just like how if we trade back, no one wants us to go too far and miss out on some of the guys we would take on the trade back. It takes both teams wanting the trade to make it happen.
Which is why I think a big move inside the top 10 seems like low probability right now, although not impossible obviously given Beane flat out said if it made sense he would do it. But we aren't getting into the top 10 with 28 and a low first rounder next year. It will cost more than that.
There does seem to be some buzz about a potential trade at 20 with Pitt though...so maybe thats the spot he would go get BTJ if he is still on the board. Its also not crazy for BTJ to make it to 28 either, most the places he is penciled in ahead of in mocks don't have WR as their biggest need with top prospects at other positions of need still on the board. So each of those popular spots like Jags, Bengals, and Steelers where BTJ is often mocked too (when not reaching us) could easily pass on him too.
But if he gets to say 20, and Beane really is high on him and has him as their guy, I think he starts looking to go get him to make sure one of the other teams like Balt, Det, KC don't leap frog us for him or someone like Dallas or Arizona snag him ahead of us.
This definitely sounds like the most probably scenario. I don't see any way Beane will move into the top 10. But he's demonstrated plenty of appetite for moving up two to eight or ten picks to get a guy he really likes. I think it's most likely, because Beane doesn't like sitting around waiting and hoping for his guy. If he has a guy, he'll go get him.
However, given what he's said about not needing a true #1, I can also see him sitting tight or even trading back.
-
4 hours ago, Beck Water said:
Thanks, @Shaw66, appreciated. (And from the responses you're getting, you can see others appreciatecha too)
I feel the problem with trading for a player like Aiyuk is that at this point, the Bills have to be judicious about who they pay. And it's not just the pick you give up, it's all the cap space you give up. Diggs and Von Miller are providing Beane and Bills fans with a very visceral demonstration of what happens when a GM guesses wrong on the window for ROI re-signing a veteran player.
I do hear you that with Beane, anything can happen regardless of what he says, and he's not closing any doors.
I personally feel that Beane "did the experiment" of trying to operate the offense without a #1 in 2019, and showed that we can win the regular season that way, but in the playoffs or playing the best teams, it's not enough.
Beck, I think you're talking about of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you say you want a stud #1 and you question what Beane is doing. On the other hand, you don't want to pay someone like Aiyuk, because it might go wrong. Well, trading up to get a stud might go wrong, too.
One thing about Beane is that he's fearless. He wasn't afraid to trade up for Allen, he wasn't afraid to trade up for Edmunds, he wasn't afraid to deal for Diggs, he wasn't afraid to go get Miller. He's going to look at what opportunities he has, and he won't shy away from pulling the trigger.
And I think you misperceive the reality of 2024 NFL offense. A true #1 may have been necessary in 2019, but multiple offenses last season, several of the best, operated without a true #1. One way to understand the difference between then and now is to think about whether you'd rather have Saquon Barkley or McCaffrey in you backfield. In my mind, it's quite clear that McCaffrey is much more valuable in current NFL offenses. Stud specialists, like Barkley and Henry, and I think Jefferson and Chase, aren't as valuable in offenses as guys who are multiple. That's why the Bills got Cook, and that's why the Bills got Samuel. And that's why Beane said he doesn't think he needs a true #1. He's looking for a talented guy who is smart, athletic, can run a complex route tree, can block, etc. etc. etc.
If somehow a stud #1 falls to him, great, he'll take him. But he doesn't see it as a need. What he needs is another multi-talented guy to go with Cook, Shakir, Samuel, and Kincaid. That's what McDermott and Brady have asked Beane to find.
I remember when the Bills got Diggs, I was excited because it was, in my words, an upgrade at three positions. They got a true #1, they got a better #2 my sliding Brown into that role, and they got a better #3 by moving Beas to his natural position. Well, offenses don't have clear 1s, 2s, and 3s any more. Offenses are multiple. They want five skill players on the field, each of whom can attack all areas on the field. The 49ers are the best example. Neither Samuel nor Aiyuk was a true #1, but man, those two plus Kittle and McCaffrey cause headaches. That's what Beane is after.
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, Beck Water said:
Understood on "not going to go back through", but if you have any clue about how far in it was, I'd appreciate it.
I heard a lot of "don't need a true #1" "#1 by committee" prior to the 2019 season. Now admittedly, we upgraded our WR room with John Brown and Cole Beasley, though relative to Fat Kelvin, Bloody Zay Jones, Bob Foster, Andre Holmes, and Deonte Thompson, that was a pretty low bar to achieve. The bottom line, though, was that when it came to the playoffs where teams had had all season to watch film on us, it simply wasn't enough and Josh Allen was throwing passes at critical junctures to Duke Williams and Pat DiMarco.
I don't want to go back there. Even if (as some suggest) Khalil Shakir takes a big step, Dalton Kincaid continues to develop, and Curtis Samuel has something akin to his previous career best year, I don't think it's enough, and I'm concerned Beane does or will "settle" for it.
Since you and Dawg keep saying it, I went back to the presser. Go to 12:30 10 about 13:30. He says, yes, a true #1 is nice. He said, "i'd like to have two." Then he said in their offense a truee 1 isn't necessary, but he also said something like, "hey, if a #1 is available in the draft or somewhere, yes." That's when he starts talking about needing a true one to support Josh early in his career.
It's very clear how Beane operates. He's said often that if he can see a way to make the team better, he's going to do it. In the presser he said if a #1 is available, he's interested. It's the same point, and it's not surprising.
He didn't say he didn't want a #1. He said in this offense he doesn't need a #1, but he clearly stated that if he can get one, he's interested. It's a completely unremarkable thing to say.
His problem is that he doesn't have the draft capital to trade up high enough to get the stud receivers in the draft, so a #1 isn't likely. But as I said, if the Niners aren't going to keep Aiyuk, they might find that the best they can do in a trade is a #1 this year and some other capital thrown in (just like the Diggs deal), Beane DOES have enough capital to do that. As I've said, I'm not predicting it. All I'm saying is that it is among the possibilities as next week unfolds.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Beck Water said:
@Shaw66, where did he say something that was clear to you that he'd like to have a "true number 1 guy"?
He started off the presser saying that in Stefon Diggs, you're talking about a guy who for 4 years filled a #1 role. He went on to say that "we have not filled a number 1 role. We have a group of guys with different skill sets, would we like to add to it at some point, yes, but I'm not sitting here thinking we have a glaring hole" He then went on to say sometimes you have young guys on your roster that you believe can ascend, but they have to prove it, too.
A lack of #1 WR is a pretty glaring hole, IMO, if you believe you need one.But, I will admit that I have not made it through the entire interview, so I'd love to be pointed at ~where he said that, unless it was in a theoretical "yeah, we'd run to the podium for Ja'Maar Chase" kind of way?
I agree that Beane very deliberately left it open that he wouldn't exclude anything, but I do believe Beane suggested that he wouldn't do it - all the stuff about not wanting to give up next year's #1 pick, not expecting to trade the #2 pick from the Diggs trade etc etc.
I'm not going to go back through the press conference and find, but I think he said it very clearly.
It was in the discussion about whether he needed to get a Diggs again, and yes, he said he didn't need to. He said, essentially, what I said a couple weeks ago - that the Bills are comfortable playing with a lot of good receivers without a stud. But as he was saying that, he also said something like, "of course, it's always nice to have one of those guys." I thought it was very clear - if a stud falls our way and he fits into our plans, then, sure, we'll do it. It's just that he doesn't feel the need to do it. He just needs another good contributor.
When i was talking about it earlier, I said that one of Shakir and Kincaid and Samuel is going to go over 1000 yards, and all they need is another guy to get 500 or 600. I really think they're thinking that. That additional guy be a first or second round rookie who has the potential to become a #1 or it could be someone else.
But, just as an example, if nothing breaks right in the draft, it could be D Hopkins or OBJ. They're going to do something. They need another receiver.
The point is he DIDN'T say "we are NOT looking for a #1." He said everyone would like to have one of those studs, but the clear implication was that the Bills don't think they need one.
What I said above is that if, and I have no idea whether it could happen, but if what the Niners need in a trade for Aiyuk is affordable to Beane will pursue it. He'd be crazy not to. And I'm not talking about next year's #1 - yes, he was clear, and I agree, that he should trade next year's #1. But this year's 1 and 2 to get a proven, stud receiver who could give the Bills one of the very best receiver groups for the next three years, I think Beane would pull the trigger on something like that.
The bottom line is that he and McDermott are building a team. Spending here means they can't spend there. They make decisions like that all the time. They want a receiver. There are a lot of different kinds of receivers available. They're going to make a choice.
Remember Beane talking about drafting Edmunds? He said preparing for that draft he went through dozens and dozens of scenarios, but none of the scenarios included getting Allen AND still have a shot at Allen. But it happened. What I'm really saying is that if the 49ers call on draft day with an offer, Beane and McDermott are going to try to figure out how to do it. All options are on the table.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:
-
I think he made it pretty clear as well that we are not going to be trading for a proven guy such as Aiyuk or Higgins as many have been wanting.
- Specifically said when we traded for Stef, Allen was an ascending player and the offense needed a guy like that.
- But that now with Allen ascended to the player he is, that is not a requirement and not necessary
Dawg - My interpretation of what he said about his different from yours. I'm not predicting a move to get one of those guys, but I don't think he suggested he wouldn't do it.
As you say, he did say that when he made the deal for Diggs, he was looking for help for Allen, because Brown and Beasley couldn't carry the offense. And yes, he said that he doesn't have to make a move like that now, because Allen has progressed. But he also didn't say, and I don't think he implied, that he wouldn't acquire a receiver by trading a draft pick.
He also was clear that he'd like to have a true number 1 guy. He just said that the Bills no longer need the guy to support Allen in that way.
Beyond that, it's clear that he intends to add to the receiver room. From that, I think the correct conclusion is that Beane is going to do what he's always done - survey the options and make a decision. Just as he did with Diggs, if the best option is to package his first with other assets to get a proven wide out, he'll do it. He might trade up, he might stick, he might trade down, and he might get his receiver by making a deal.
If the 49ers are listening to trade offers, they may be finding that they can't get the compensation they hoped (because of what it will cost for his new team to keep him), they might like the idea of getting a first round pick and moving Aiyuk out of the NFC. If that's the conclusion they're coming to, I don't think Beane said anything today that would preclude his making a move with them.
-
1
-
I think he made it pretty clear as well that we are not going to be trading for a proven guy such as Aiyuk or Higgins as many have been wanting.
-
3 minutes ago, SoonerBillsFan said:
I am thinking if a 1st round grade isn't there at 28, he trades back. I would then take our extra 4th and #60 and move into the top 50.
That will anger many, but give us 2 really talented players.
Makes sense. He is completely clear that he doesn't need a star receiver at number one and that he just needs to add some quality receiving talent. Given that, the trade back makes a lot of sense, because he can get a quality receiver in the second round and pick up a quality player at another position, as well.
-
1
-
2
-
-
54 minutes ago, SoonerBillsFan said:
I wish we could find a guy at DE who was truly impactful, meaning 10+ sacks a season. I want Sweat at DT somehow out of this draft.
That guy is going to be Von Miller.
-
46 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:
In the wake of the Diggs trade, a friend had this reaction and came up with the scenario below. Curious to know what people think because it actually seems genuinely plausible to me, and I'd love it:
"A bunch of you know, I've been hoping since February that Beane would trade Diggs for a 2nd or 3rd rounder. The fact that he was able to get what should be a high end #2 in 2025 is great.
What Beane did was jettison the 4 receivers that caught the ball at a 63% clip & kept the 3 guys that collectively caught it at an 82% catch rate. Shakir, Cook & Kincaid we're all top 30 in the league in that category [incidentally, Cook was 81.5 percent for 8.2 yards/target]. Even after these 3 guys sign their 2nd contracts, they should all remain good values for most of the remainder of Allen's career.
Here's 4 relatively conservative projections for 2024
Targets Yards Yards/Target
Kincaid 110 800 7.3
Shakir 80 800 10
Samuel 90 750 8.3
All RBs 80 650 8.1
That equates to 3,000 yards on 360 targets. Allen has averaged 36 attempts per game over the past 4 years. 36x17=612 which leaves 252 targets for Wr1, Wr2, Wr5 & Knox. Allen has never thrown over 4,600 yards in his career. If he were to average 7.9 yards per attempt on the remaining 252 attempts, then he would have thrown for 5,000. Just for perspective, Shakir led the league in yards/target last year at 13.6. Aiyuk was 2nd at 12.8 & Diggs was a pedestrian 7.4, unlike 2020 when he was 9.2
For me, ideally Beane couples pick #28 & our 2025 2nd round pick to either trade for Aiyuk, or move up to get Brian Thomas Jr. Then, if he took our 2025 first round pick to trade back into the 2nd round to grab either Legette or McConkey, that would be nice. We'd have the fastest & most dynamic set of skill players in team history.
It sounds like we can easily create North of 60 million in cap space for 2025 & free up a bunch more room in 2026. That's a fantastic kicker to this Diggs trade, because it'll allow us to target multiple pro bowl free agents in the next couple of years.All of these factors combined, will allow us to compete with KC for the next 8 years & we'll be able to view this trade for what it is ... a prelude to a parade!"
An interesting way to look at 2024. I didn't study it in depth, but I have these reactions:
I actually one of the three key receivers will go over 1000 yards. Could be any of Kincaid, Shakir, or Samuel. I think that would happen on the assumption that the Bills use #28 to get the best receiver available, meaning the receiver who fits the Bills needs the best. That guy doesn't have to produce 1000 yards. All he has to do is produce 500-600.
Essentially, I think what can happen in that scenario is that one of the three the Bills currently have will move up to replace Diggs as the 1000-yard guy, and the rookie will move in to replace the 500 yards, more or less, that the guy who's replacing Diggs got last season. Completely plausible in my mind.
The longer I've considered this, I think the receiver problem will be solved without drastic measures. Now, I worry more about having two quality safeties and having enough depth at corner.
-
3
-
2
-
-
Beck -
Its all just noise. We go looking for news, but there is no news. Then we stuck on somethung that was written to catch our eye. Sometimes its more or less correct, sometimes it isn't, but it's all just noise.
Yesterday the Boston Globe said the Bills werent active in free agency because the Pegulas are unhappy with the results they're getting and tightened the purse strings. Huh?
Unless it is written by the usual people who follow the Bills, it is just noise.
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
-
3 hours ago, MasterStrategist said:
I think we're missing 2 legit outside WRs, 1 who is well rounded and the 2nd who can at least be a threat deep. I just don't see Shakir being successful outside the slot, and there seems to be a plethora of options there now.
We will see how this draft shakes out but I still think Khalil is a solid complementary weapon (like a #4 guy). I'm hoping Beane doesn't bank on Shakir/Samuel outside, rather that he focuses on drafting two early WRs.
I dont think Brady agrees with you. At least one of Samuel and Shakir will get a lot of snaps at wideout.
Will we be in Super Bowl contention this year?
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
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.