Shaw66

I agree with bellcow point. He's not the guy who's just going to put burden of the team's rushing needs on his back and just carry that aspect of the team's performance. I don't see him that dominant. The style of his game is a Marshall Faulk, Thurman Thomas style - that is, the combination of running and receiving skills is what makes him valuable. Before people go nuts, no, I'm not saying he's going to be Faulk or Thomas. What I'm saying is that his style of play is the same as theirs, but I can't see him ever being productive like those guys. What I can envision is Singletary as the lead dog on a two-dog team. That is, I think Singletary is too good to be just a complement to the starter. I think it's the other way around. Singletary has already shown that he can be a factor in the lineup at pretty much any down and distance. If you're third and eighteen, Singletary helps if he's on the field, because he's an open field pass catching threat. If you're third and eight, he helps because he already understands blitz responsibilities and likely will get better. If it's third and one, he's a threat passing or running. I think what the Bills need is another guy who can play that style, maybe a rookie who's learning and by mid-season could be expected to spell Singletary without forcing offensive play selection to be limited. You want him to play the same style, instead a complementary style, because the Bills want to make being multi-faceted a problem for other teams, so the second running back has to be able to run the whole offense without hurting the team. Think Kenneth Davis. Now, his running style didn't look much like Thurman's, but that isn't the point. Davis was valuable because when he came into the game, Kelly could still run the entire offense. If the Bills win Super Bowl in the coming years, the story about Singletary will be not that he's a star in the league, but it could be that he is a superb competitor with a broad skill set, an important contributor to a winning team. I think that's his upper limit. Bellcow? No. Lead dog on a two-dog team? I think absolutely. Needs to improve parts of his game a little bit, but absolutely he can be that guy.

It's interesting to get an inside look at the fraternity. It never occurred to me that players around the league reach out to one another when a big change like this happens to one of the brothers. It's great that Cousins and Thielen and others got to him quickly, but other guys around the league? It's a good thing. The turkey thing is nice. I wonder if he'll continue in Minneapolis or move that gig to Buffalo. Either way, it's a good thing. Love how he describes the leap. Obviously it made an impression on more than just the Bills and Bills fans. Can't wait.

What I like about this video is that it reminds me what good friends you make playing sports, and how much fun you have with those friends. Look at the two of them, seven years apart in age, from different parts of the country, played together for only two years, and you can see the bond between them. Sports isn't the only place where you can make friends like that, but it's one of the best.

I don't think this is accurate. I think that the link is not only constantly evolving, it's constantly evolving into something more complex. And the good coaches have books filled with how all the various complexities work and how to stop them. McDermott has those books, and Belichick, and plenty of others. So if the Dolphins start running the single wing, it may surprise teams for a week or two, but then everyone stops it. The wildcat. The K-gun. The Packers power run game. The defensive solution to all of these problems, and the modern nuances like the rub plays, are known, and coaches keep developing defensive schemes for their teams to master in order to stop each nuance. The offensive coordinators respond by adding wrinkles on top of last season's wrinkles. The result is that receivers now are much more sophisticated than they used to be. There was a time when they it never occurred to them to practice the back shoulder throw and catch, but not it's a skill that's been added to everything else they already know. The necessary knowledge and skills keep increasing. The problem with all of this that you have one guy on the field who has to understand all of it and react to all of it. He has to understand all of the things the defense does, including the things it CAN do but hasn't for the past few weeks. He has to understand everything each of his offensive teammates is supposed to do, and he has to put them in a position to do it. If he's playing against the Bills, this means he's looking at a defense that is prepared for everything and that shows nothing about what they intend to do until after the snap. QB is an extraordinarily difficult job, and each year it gets a little more difficult. You can't hide the shortcomings of your quarter back with talent at other positions, because the other positions are only able to do the difficult things they have to do to beat the defense if the QB gets them into the right play and the right position on the field. So I don't see that top players at other positions can save you. What can save you is going the Lamar Jackson, Tyler Murray route, bring in a guy and give him a gimmicky offense that takes the league a couple of years to figure out, like the K-Gun. If you do that, you can hope you can hope to win a Super Bowl in a couple of years, but if it doesn't work, the league will catch up with the gimmicks and you'll either have to teach you QB to be a real QB like Brees or Rodgers, or you'll have to get a new QB, look for a new gimmick, and see if you can steal a Super Bowl in the couple of years the new gimmick will last. I don't see any time in the future when GMs won't be chasing after a top-10 QB. As I've said earlier, that's exactly why the decisions on Prescott and Goff are so tough. I think Goff signed up early, but the Cowboys had to tag Prescott because they just weren't sure. If they believed in your theory, they would have let him go and gone and started down the lightning in a bottle route. Yes, I suppose the league may ultimately move on to a Kyler Murray/Lamar Jackson model, but that only makes sense if guys with marginally less talent than Murray can succeed doing it. Baker Mayfield is one of those guys, and I'm sure the Browns were less than thrilled with what they saw last season. Put another way, the quarterbacks who develop into the really talent QBs in the mental aspects of the game are gold, because they can make your team competitive for ten years, assuming it takes them five years to get up the learning curve. The QBs who can't develop into top guys at the mental game have to bring some other extraordinary skills to the field AND has to have a team designed to play around him. There is a small window of time when that system will work, and then defenses will close the window.

Do you understand that "any" does not mean "every"?

Well, it was easy to be a critic of him as a pass receiver. He wasn't a great ball catcher, although he was sure handed returning punts, and he wasn't a great route runner. He couldn't make it those days as a number 2 receiver, despite multiple opportunities. As were saying above the game has changed, and today Roscoe would play more and get less criticism. Want an example, let me ask you this: Who would you rather have running the jet sweep? Roscoe or McKenzie. That question is a joke. McDermott and Daboll would have had Roscoe on the field a lot more than McKenzie. Finally, your big brass comment is right on. Roscoe was fearless, truly fearless. He ran like a scared rabbit, but he was not afraid to get hit. The single Roscoe play I remember most is one that he's criticized for: his muffed punt with two minutes left in the worst game in history, Browns over Bills, 6-3. Cleveland recovered and kicked the winning field goal. I don't remember it as a low point for Roscoe. I remember it as pure football smarts and courage. The wind was blowing like crazy from the open end of the stadium, in the Bills's face. The Bills offense had been beyond horrible even with the win, but against the wind it was hopeless. So the punt is falling to Roscoe, and its wind blown or he misjudged it or whatever, but he decided to go after it and make a play on it. His hands weren't his biggest asset, and he muffed it. Browns recover, field goal, game over. Why don't I blame Roscoe? Because he knew he was the only guy on the field who could deliver an explosive play. On any given punt he could get 10, 30 or a TD, and pretty much no one else on the team or the team together was going to get 30 yards, even if you gave them 20 plays to do it. He knew. So the best chance to win the game was to go get the punt and do something with it. It took courage, because he knew he was making a difficult and risky play, but it was the right decision. Didn't work, but it was the right decision.

Oh, and if you watch the video of Roscoe's great punt return, wait for the end zone view and look at the blocking. There were some great individual blocks, and Roscoe read them perfectly.

I thought the same thing. He would be playing, in a bigger role, on some team today. That speed, change of direction and acceleration is more valuable today than it was then. Tasker is an interesting name, but having watched the video, I'd take Roscoe as a punt returner. Tasker, of course, was more valuable, because Roscoe was only a punt returner and sort of a gadget receiver. Tasker was returner, gunner, all-purpose special teams, backup receiver. The other guys who need to be in the discussion are George Saimes and George Byrd. Saimes didn't have speed Roscoe had, but he had truly outstanding elusiveness. He just darted everywhere, start, stop, change direction, whatever. He was the master of the 15-20 yard return, over and over. Didn't break many because the pursuit eventually got him, and he didn't have speed. Byrd didn't return punts for very long - three years, and he declined some after his first season, but he was a solid punt returner. And he had the return for a touchdown in the AFL championship game, 23-0 over the Chargers. Still, hard to argue with Roscoe as the best.

Good. It's good to know you agree about that. I don't know what you mean by the OBJ Evans comment. I, for one, do consider them a push. I'd take Diggs over OBJ because of their relative attitudes, and I'd call Evans a push because Diggs is more gifted physically (he benefits from being smaller), but Evans makes up for it with sheer will, so far as I can tell.

If you listen to the Beane interview with Florio, at the end of the interview he says almost exactly what you say here. He says what the Bills needed in that game was what they needed all season long - to score more points. And what they needed to do that was a wideout to combine with Brown and Beasley. He tried to get one during the season but couldn't. He says it was not Allen. Yes, Allen tried to do too much, but he did it because he wants to win and nothing else was working.

Nice interview. Not a lot new by now, but it's interesting nevertheless. He talks a lot about what they're doing to adjust to virus limitations. And, by the way, he sort of weighed in on the debate that is going on in the thread about what would have happened if the Bills had had Diggs last season. He said what he learned in the playoff game was what he already knew - the Bills weren't scoring enough points, and what they needed to score more points was a receiver to pair with Brown and Beasley.

At least a #4. Not sure he's on the roster today. There's a limit to how many jet sweeps you can run.

I agree with all of this. Williams did disappoint last season, especially on the contested catches. That's where I thought he could excel. It's also clear he disappointed because he couldn't work his way onto the field. He just never showed enough to contribute. And I agree about Diggs' impact. We thought Foster, McKenzie and Williams were on the hotseat last season. This season their roster spots are in big trouble. Each of them has to add some real value somewhere, because they aren't likely to be critical to the passing game. I think McKenzie has shown he's limited as a receiver (which is different from his ability on the jet sweep), Foster's been limited all around except maybe special teams. Williams wasn't able to add value anywhere. Diggs' arrival sent a message to all three of them - get better or move on.

Oh, for Pete's sake. Nobody's guaranteeing a win. We're just having a conversation, and almost everyone can see what's plainly obvious - a receiver with excellent ability to get open on short routes, with excellent deep speed and with excellent ability to win 50-50 balls was probably the single biggest improvement the Bills could have used against Houston. It's not that hard. You want me to imagine all the things that could still have gone wrong. I could do that, but it would be a colossal waste of time. You can spend time on it if you'd like. So sure, maybe he'll get a bad case of BO and won't be permitted in the receiver room, or maybe he won't like beef on weck and the fans will boo him and he'll give everything the bird. Maybe he will be unhappy because he isn't getting enough targets, maybe he can't play in the cold, maybe, maybe, maybe. All we're trying to do here is talk about what kind of impact Diggs is likely to have on the Bills offense. And the answer, whatever you may think, is that there's a good chance he will have a significant positive impact, because he is a proven, quality NFL receiver in the prime of his career.

Of course nothing is for sure, and all sorts of things could have happened to allow the Texans still to win. But if you're going to pick one position (other than QB) where a superior talent was likely to change the outcome of the game, it's probably wide out. As others have said, Allen spent the fourth quarter looking for a receiver to make a play. Diggs is a playmaker.

The fact is that after the Texans game, virtually every Bills fan, including Brandon Beane, was saying the Bills need help at receiver. They weren't saying the Bills need help at QB, they weren't saying the Billsneed help at DT. The only thing Bills fans were saying almost in unison was "the Bills need a receiver." So, no, at the end of the Texans game I didn't say "the Bills would have won if they had had Diggs." But I was saying "the Bills need a receiver," and if you'd asked me if Diggs would do, I would have said "are you kidding?" And I would have said, and I'll say today, the Bills would have beaten the Texans with Diggs in the lineup. He would have had the same kind of impact on the game that Hopkins had. A big catch or two, some other nice completions, draw the attention of the defense. The guy is a special talent, and it's amazing to think that people can't see how that kind of talent impacts every game.

I think you're wrong about that. Over his five seasons in the league, he's clearly one of the ten best. 365 catches for 4263 yards. 70+ catches, 800+ yards a season. Clearly better are Michael Thomas, Julio Jones, Hopkins. Those three guys have consistently put up 1200-1400 yard seasons. More or less a statistical push are Keenan Allen, Amari Cooper, Mike Evans and OBJ. Over five years they aren't much different. Definitely top 10.

You know, Happy, I've been shooting my mouth off in this thread, all based on what the stats might suggest, and I haven't really been thinking what it mean to have a legitimate #1 receiver. What it means is things like the toe tap. It means catching the ball behind him on a 12-yard crossing pattern. It means beating the DB to the best position to make a play on the ball. It means catching the ball in space because his last move left the defender in the dirt, or because the corner was forced to give him a cushion. There are a lot plays, I'd say two to five a game, that you'll predictably get from Diggs that the Bills would only occasionally get from the receivers they had last season. As an aside, I think you're unfair to Duke. He wasn't a CFL castoff. He led the league; he was a CFL graduate, not a drop out. Still, that doesn't change the fact that he wasn't an impact player in 2019.

Yeah, absolutely. It is a short-term and long-term move, both. It shocked me in what it said about present. It said the Bills aren't done building, but they aren't waiting to win.

This is maybe the best way to understand the impact of Diggs. I was one of those people. Put Williams in, because maybe he'll do SOMETHING. Diggs solves that problem. If Williams sees the field in 2020, it will be because he got better than what we saw in 2019.

I agree with your view, but it isn't the way the GMs thing about it. Sure, there hasn't been a HOF QB to come out of the draft in 10 years, except maybe Mahomes. And one or two, maybe, who aren't yet identifiable. I'm just saying that no GM wants to be the guy who had a guy who turned out to be a HOFamer and let him go. The Chargers have had a good quarterback for the past 15 years, but they could have had Drew Brees. That was about as big a single personnel decision that any GM has made in the past fifteen years. Trading for Mahomes may have been another. Whoever the Chargers GM was, "Let Drew Brees go" is not on his resume. Nobody wants that on his resume. At the time you're faced with the decision, you're thinking, "I don't want to be known as the guy who let Dak Prescott go, or the guy who let Jared Goff go, or the guy who let Carson Wentz go." It's tough to have the courage to do that, knowing that the next QB you get may be Rivers, who doesn't quite get you there, or RGIII, who blows up, or someone in between. It's just a huge decision if the guy you have has shown real promise.

The reality of running an NFL team is that you always have holes and you always have needs. If you drive your personnel decisions by need, you're always chasing needs, and the overall team talent suffers. And you still have needs, because you always have needs. Whaley chased needs, and the result was that he filled the team with mediocre talent. He gave big contracts to Taylor and Hughes and Glenn - he boasted about having the six high-compensation players that a team needs and can afford, but all his high compensation players were mediocre. That's what happens when you chase needs. If you draft for talent and plug holes with free agency, over time you've filled the team with talent. If you draft for need, you're always chasing talent, and your roster is never as strong as the best teams. Except for quarterback, it doesn't matter what positions your talent plays. If you've got four or five non-QB stars, it doesn't matter if they're olinemen or dlinemen or dbs, or receivers. You're still going to have needs, and fill those needs in free agency. That's exactly what Beane is doing. Diggs was the BPA at #18, and Beane had the 22nd pick. That's what Beane told us. He also had a need at receiver. When the BPA ahead of him in the draft is a player at a position of need, he will consider trading up. That's exactly what he did. He had the 22nd pick, Diggs was the BPA at 18, so Beane went and got him. If he couldn't make the deal for Diggs, he was NOT going to use the 22nd pick on a receiver unless a receiver was #1 on his board. He'd go BPA and find a receiver in the third or fourth round, which is where he starts filling needs.

So you mean Beane has been lying to us for three years? He knows he drafts for need, but he's telling all of us he drafts BPA? Or do you think that Beane is not a smart GM, because smart GMs draft for need? So Beane is stupid? Why is it so hard to believe what he's been telling us for three years? In the early rounds he drafts BPA, and then as he moves to the later rounds he moves toward need. In the early rounds if he sees a guy on the board who meets an important need and is also the BPA on the board, he will try to trade up to get him. His two drafts have followed this pattern. He's happy to meet his needs, to fill holes, in free agency - he doesn't plan on them long-term, but short-term The entire offensive line, with the exception of Morse, was short-term meeting needs. Gore was meeting needs. Brown and Beasley were meeting needs. The free agent linemen last year were short-term; Ford was long-term. AJ Klein was short-term; Edmunds was long-term. Gore was short-term; Singletary was long-term. He does it all the time, and it's exactly what he has told us he does. But you go ahead believing that he actually uses his first and second round picks for need.

Beane's been very clear about what he does. He takes BPA, except if there's a guy on board who is the BPA and also is a player of need, he will trade up. That's what he did for Allen, Edmunds and Ford. Did he also go up for Singletary? Oliver was just good luck. BPA was also of need. Didn't trade up for the other Josh because he wasn't a player of need. It's pretty simple. I'd say the potential for a trade up is at running back - he needs one, despite what he says about Yeldon. Maybe edge, but he doesn't really need one this year. Like one but doesn't need one. No way I see him going up for a receiver. If a receiver is the BPA he will take him, but he won't chase one.

Yeah, his numbers look great, but somehow he doesn't win. So do you still pay him? Was Rivers worth all the money he got? His numbers were great, but he didn't win. I don't know. I really don't. It's clear guys are overpaid. But it's so important to have a really good QB, so if you've got a guy with what seems to be close, a Prescott or a Cousins, he's close but not there, you're hard pressed to let him go. GMs have gotten smart about overpaying other positions. Clowney is finding that out. But they'll spend on QBs.