Shaw66

Maybe I do overestimate them. But suppose you're a Gm and your team is only four deep at receiver. Suppose you liked Zay in the draft. Suppose Zay could be your number 2 or your slot guy. There are people on this board who were saying a month ago that Zay was a lock as the number 2, so why wouldn't some GM want him as a number 2 or 3? If you're that gm, would you give a fifth or 6th for him? I don't thin that's far-fetched. It looks like the Bills have a lot of receiver talent. Why not trade one? Why not trade Yeldon? Some team that is weak at rb might want him. If you're a gm you can wait for cuts, but then you have to compete with other teams. We will see, but you know Beane likes to deal. I'm expecting the Bills to trade someone.

That's the point. You don't trade your 8th best receiver. You trade your fifth best receiver fora pick because your 6th and Th best receivers are good enough now and have good potential. You have to give up something to get something. As other people have said, how important, really, is your fifth best receiver? If your starters are, say, Beasley, Brown and Jones, and Roberts is locked, how important is Foster? Or if Foster is your starter, how important is Jones? If you can get a pick for one of them, and if you like McKenzie and Williams, why not pick up the pick? What you have to look for is a trade, not a cut. I agree Foster and Jones aren't likely to get cut. I think its possible one of them gets traded.

No he doesn't have the same value. But there is some receivee on the Bills roster right now who probably will be on another team's roster week one. The Bills can cut that guy or get a fifth, sixth or seventh for him. Why not get the pick? The question is who? Foster, Jones and Williams are the most likely answers.

It's the reality of a system driven by relentless competition. There's always someone trying to take your job, and once you let him the field in your place, your job is at risk. By week 5 a half dozen teams will be looking for corners. He will be back somewhere.

Well, we're on the outside, so we don't really know. Maybe Foster is a lock so they don't need to see him. But as I said above, this is about team building. McBeane have to be thinking simultaneously about what makes the team better in September, in December and in 2020. If they have someone on board who isn't as valuable as Foster now, but likely will be as valuable as Foster in December, then the team may be better off trading Foster now for a pick in 2020. And "as valuable as Foster" doesn't mean that he has the same characteristics as Foster - he could be valuable in different ways. The point is that right now the Bills seem to have 7 or 8 receiving assets with some current and some future value. The question is how to manage those to have the most value from all of them over time. That probably means trading someone. Trading a receiver today may mean the Bills have a better backup safety next year without materially reducing the strength of the receiving corps. It's like the Eagles trading Bradford or the Chiefs tradio Alex Smith. So even though Foster was a starter and looked liked like a comer doesn't mean he won't be dealt.

Never saw Zay make a catch like Duke's TD. That kind of ability is special.

I raised the question because it seems to me that Brown, Beasley and Roberts are the only locks. I can imagine scenarios where any of the others is cut/traded.

Welcome to roster management when you have depth. When you have more options than you have slots, you look at potential and trade value. You certainly dont look at history. It's unlikely Jones will ever lead this team in TDs again. He has trade value. Williams has more potential. In that situation, even though Jonea may be in the top 6 in terms of current performance, a year from now the Bills may be better off having gotten a po k for him now and having let someone else grow into something. If Jones isnt in the top 3 receivers, his best use may be as trade bait.

Thanks. I didn't understand the case for Dimarco. This explains it and answers the question. He is in.

I dont think one has much to with the other. I think the receiver question will be about deep speed and special teams. That's where Duke may have a disadvantage. You cant have too many receivers who can make contested catches in the red zone.

I wanted to go back and figure out who opened that hole. Thanks. At the one yard line you dont very often see defensive lines driven back like that.

Nice rundown. So on your numbers it's Roberts and five wide receivers. That means Wade, if he is even a possibility, is fighting a receiver for a spot. Thanks.

I haven't seen the games, so I know less than most. Beasley, Brown and Roberts seem like the only locks. We saw very little of Jones and Foster recently. McKenzie, Ray Ray and Williams each has had some highlights. Of those 5, some may useful special teamers. Some may have modest trade value. Jones and Foster have the best experience. Is it a total muddle? And for that matter, the running back spots are confused, too, principally because Wade keeps making big plays. Does he actually have a shot at the 53? Will he take Yeldon's spot? Does Yeldon actually HAVE a spot?

Well, I have no doubt they can get pressure with 5. But I think they will do it with four. Hughes gets his fairly consistently. Murphy is healthy. Oliver wI'll flash sometimes. And Phillips. I think it will be fine. Not great, but good enough.

I agree with this. Very few guys get presure one on one consistently. Its nice to have Mack crashing in from the edge, but very few teams have that. I may be wrong, but I'm confident the Bills will scheme to generate pressure.

Thanks, logic. I dId something similar last week, and it's more true this week. Execution is the key. I see it mostly on defense. Someone, usually more than one, is near the ball. Tackling is good. On offense Allen finally had one of those preseason games that the best QBs have. Easy decisions, accurate throws, good drives, get off the field. Encouraging.

Agreed. I want giving him a .220. I was just giving a hypothetical example. I think the Bill had collective corporate dysfunction. Whaley wasn't great, but he wasn't a disaster. Collectively, however, the Bill's had a bad 10 year run. Mr. Wilson wasn't a good owner to begin with. Than he turned everything over to Brandon. Then the Pegs came in and hired Rex. Finally, it looks like the Pegs got ot right. But it was a bad 10 years or more.

I don't know, and I won't look to try to make the argument, because it misses the point. EVERY GM has picks, trades and free agent decisions that don't work out. They don't work out for a lot of different reasons. So one player, like Shaq, who didn't work like we'd hoped doesn't matter. It might have been a bad collection of players in the draft (although then the question is why didn't the Bills trade out of the pick?). It might have been that Shaq hasn't performed. It might have been coaching. I don't know, and I don't think it matters all that much. What DOES matter is your batting average over time. Everyone strikes out sometime. But in the first round, you're supposed to hit singles, doubles and homers pretty consistently. Miss on one, okay. But Maybin, Spiller, Dareus, Watkins, Manuel, Shaq is more than an occasional strikeout. It's being a perpetual .220 hitter, and you aren't going to win a lot of games with consistent first-round performance like that. So evaluating the Shaq pick on his own merits doesn't mean a lot, and it doesn't really bother me if he was the best available at that pick or not. What bothers me is that he was part of a string of first-round picks that didn't work out for the Bills, and that has to be put at the feet of the GM/coach/management.

It isnt important but it's interesting. It's one way to evaluate your teams gm and how he drafted. If you're drafting Shaq in the first round every year, you're hurting for talent. Like how about Maybin, Spiller, Manuel, Dareus, Watkins, Shaq? How'd that work out? Look how much better the team looks when you draft White, Allen, Edmunds, Oliver and Cody. Drafting matters. That's why people talk about Shaq.

Right. A guy who plays essentially full time in his scheme is a C. A D is a guy on the team who can't see the field. Pity is that Shaq could end up with a really nice 10 year career and he will always be remembered as ad D because he wasn't some sackmaster right out of the gate.

Good point.

That's pretty good reporting. Look at this graphic he had: whoops. beat me. Really interesting, isn't it?

What was nice about BBMB was the volume. There were a ton of posters, and there were plenty of active discussions. What was bad about BBMB was the volume. There were a ton of posters, and it was hard to find good active discussions among all the crud that some people thought fit to post.

It doesn't hurt to say "thank you" once in a while.

I happened to watch the end of Field of Dreams the other day, where one or another of the ghost players thanks Ray for having built the field so they all could play ball again. This morning I was thinking about how I come here multiple times every day to find news about the Bills and people talking about the Bills. I get essentially no intelligent discussion about the Bills here in Connecticut, just the usual Patriot blather and "the Bills are terrible" conventional wisdom. Here, I find people who actually know about the team. I don't agree with all of them all of the time, but at least what we have here is people who actually can name more than Allen and McCoy on the Bills' roster. So I have to say thanks to SDS and all the others for making this place possible and keeping it running. It's great to have a field to play on, instead of living in limbo like Shoeless Joe Jackson and his buddies. Go BILLS!