Shaw66

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.

That's an interesting point. Josh has his relationship with Beas and Brown. Now Diggs can come in, and he knows Brown and Beas are vets and he can trust them. It will make it easier to roll Diggs into the mix with these pre-existing relationships. I suppose someone in Brown's position might have preferred to stay the #1 guy - #1 is good for the ego. But Brown seems like a pretty savvy guy, and I think he knows he isn't a Diggs. And I think he knows that Diggs will actually be good for him. Again, I wasn't talking about the practicality of actually adding Diggs last year. I just wanted to see what his production, added to the production of the team, would have meant to Josh's passer rating.

I never looked at the NBA from that perspective. I'd think if you were a fan of a particular team, the NBA's system sucks unless your owner happens to land the right combination of players for a couple of years. If he doesn't, if he never does, you're the Knicks. What fun is that. But I have to admit that as sort of casual NBA fan, it IS fun to see different teams every year or two. Who's Lebron paired with this year? Will that work? Those two guys at Houston - Hardin and Westbrook - can't possibly make it work together, can they? I don't know, let's see. That is fun. But I don't think it would work in the NFL, because winning depends so much on teamwork, and teamwork is enhanced greatly by continuity. The talents of guys coming are offset by the declining continuity and teamwork. How much better do the Chiefs get if they two lights out receivers to go with what they already have, a guy who would send Watkins to the bench? Maybe you'd end up with Jerry Jones buying all the best players, and they would crush everyone, but I doubt the best players would want to share the limelight or the coach would be willing to put up with trying to mold a new bunch of guys into a team every year.

I agree it's absurd, but it also makes sense at the same time. The position is so important that you simply can't afford to make a mistake. When you have a guy like Goff, who looks really good but isn't there yet, you're going to extend him and pay his price. He's close, and the chances are the next guy you get won't get as close. It's really tough to get the right guy, and when you get one he's worth everything. A Brady, a Rodgers, a Brees. So if you're close, like with a Goff, you extend him. It would take real guts to let him go and start over. A Parcells would do that, but it takes real courage. I'm not saying it's the right call; I'm just saying that when you have a relatively young guy who is close, the fear is he's too valuable to let go. Look at Jerry Jones and Dak Prescott. What do you do with Prescott? The guy has looked like an absolute world beater sometimes, but he gives me the feeling that he may never take the next steps. You gonna let him go and then start trying to position yourself in the draft over the next couple of years so you can hope the stars align and you get another Aikman? There are a lot more teams looking for QBs than there are Aikmans floating around. Or Cousins. Someone was going to pay Cousins. His numbers were great, but there was something about him that I always found uninspiring. He just doesn't look or feel like the kind of guy you're going to win with. But he's awfully close, and maybe he'll get over the top. That's the fear that drove Washington to tag him, even as the price kept going up. Washington finally decided they wouldn't pay it, they just weren't sure, but Minnesota was ready, in a heartbeat. It's hard to say no to a QB who's close.

What do you mean, he needs to? If his passer rating is 95, you're going to shop him and go looking for a new QB? That's absurd. That points out exactly why it is not a prove it year. Dak Prescott, Aaron Rodgers, Deshaun Watson and Carson Wentz didn't have a passer rating of 100. Are you cutting them loose, too?

Bills defense held them to one point fewer than they were scoring on average for the last seven games of the season, and 3 points less than they were scoring in the last 6 games of the season. Bills defense held them to 40 yards fewer than they were averaging. And three points they gave up came on a short field created by an Allen fumble. Defense certainly could have played better. It was not a collapse. It's not a collapse when, with the game on the line, on two of Houston's last three possessions, the Bills held them to two three and odds and stopped a fourth down short yardage play. That's losing, but it's not a collapse.

Can an offense with a top 5 receiver and top 10 quarter back score score 19 points in a half after being shut out? Bills shut out a really good offense for a half. They didn't in the second half. That's not a collapse. That's getting outplayed in the second half by a good offense, just as much as the defense outplayed their offense in the first half. No one's calling the the Texans' offensive performance in that game a "collapse." The defense wasn't quite good enough. The Bills' offense flat out didn't deliver when it had to.

I don't buy the basic premise of the article: that the moves in free agency help you predict the positions where Beane is likely to draft. I think the fact that Beane drafts into the positions where he just signed free agents, like Cody Ford after signing an entire offensive line, including reserves shows only that once Beane has filled his needs in free agency, he's free to go BPA. It's true that Beane may not have gotten any long-term solutions in free agency, but he got competent guys McDermott could work with. That meant Beane could take the BPA, who happened to be Ford. Just like Singletary happened to be the BPA in the next round. In other words, filling holes in free agency does just that it fills holes. Filling holes frees the GM from "needing" to go a certain way in a certain round. You get the BPA, and you keep doing that and you have a lot of really talented football players. If you have talent everywhere else and journeyman free agents plugging holes at one position group, so be it, you play with that group. That's exactly what we saw with the receiver group last season. Clear holes, filled in free agency. They didn't draft a receiver, even though they probably knew they hadn't gotten as good as they would like at receiver. They were content to play with the guys they got. This season, they still saw a hole, and free agency is for filling holes. They traded instead of going free agent, but it's the same thing. They filled the hole. They don't have at receiver this season, but it doesn't mean they won't take a receiver in the second round. If a receiver is BPA, they're taking him. If a receiver is more or less tied at the top of the board with a guy at a position of need, they'll break the tie in favor of need.

It's a 60--minute game. Sure it matters when you give up points, but it matters more in terms of psychology than anything else, but that doesn't make it a collapse. They held the Texans below their offensive average; that is not a collapse. What happened against the Eagles was a collapse.

I agree with you, on both points. This notion that the defense collapsed is ridiculous. Texans had the 12th best offense in the league in yards, 14th best in points, over 23 a game. The defense held the Texans to 19 in regulation. That's hardly a collapse. Moreover, the defense got an absolutely essential three and out before the Bills drove to tie the game, and the defense also got an excellent stop on the Texans' first possession in overtime. That was hardly a defensive collapse. An offense like Houston's, witha quarterback like Watson, is going to score some points some of the time.