Shaw66
-
Posts
8,974 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
12 hours ago, GASabresIUFan said:
If Van Pran starts for the Bills it will be at C. He played C at UGA and is excellent at the shotgun snap. If Edwards falters or the McGovern at C experiment fails, the Bills will move McGovern to G, Edwards to the bench and Van Pran to center.
I doubt that the McGovern isn't going to fail at center. It isn't an experiment. He's the center. Whether the rookie plays isn't about McGovern. If Van Pran can win the job from McGovern, then McGovern will move over.
-
5 hours ago, Logic said:
I'll start by saying that this was far from my favorite Bills draft.
I'm usually Mr Optimistic when it comes to draft classes, but I thought this year's class was just...fine. It was like if you fed Brandon Beane's draft tendencies and the Bills' needs into ChatGPT and asked it to spit out the 2024 Bills draft class. It was completely on brand, it filled the needs we all knew the team had, and it'll probably end up producing a few average players and a couple good ones.
Ho-hum. Nobody in this class m akes me stand up and say "that guy's really gonna help the Bills get over the hump and win a title".
Onto the picks:
1. Keon Coleman - I was not a fan of this pick. For a team whose WR corps needed more speed and separation, this guy made the LEAST sense to me of all the 1st/2nd round WR prospects. Josh Allen has historically thrived with fast, shifty WRs who separate well, and has not clicked with big-bodied guys who struggle with separation. So adding Keon Coleman? It feels like "Square peg, meet round hole". He does have great athleticism and RAC ability for a man his size. He's also young to the position, having played football full time for only two seasons and being only 20 years old. I have concerns about his ability to play X in the NFL, and I'll believe that he's a better fit as a big slot until proven otherwise. Here's hoping I'm wrong about Coleman. The absolute ceiling I see for him is "Solid WR2". Not what I was hoping for in a star studded WR class and with a crying need at the position.
2. Cole Bishop - Looks like he should be just what the doctor ordered at safety for the Bills. He seems to be more Poyer than Hyde, in that he's at his best in the box and playing the run, and he packs a wallop when he tackles. He appears to have untapped man coverage potential, with Dalton Kincaid saying Bishop usually got the better of him 1-on-1 at Utah. He also has freaky speed for the position and a great mental disposition. Should be an easy fit in the Bills' scheme. At the VERY least, I expect him to contribute from day 1 as a dime 'backer, but I'll ultimately be surprised if he doesn't wind up starting at one of the two safety spots by midseason.
3. Dewayne Carter - Good bull rusher, great motor, tons of experience, impeccable character. Seems like a 1T/3T 'tweener. Quickly apparent from his interviews that he's one of the smartest, most likable, easy to root for guys you'll ever see in the NFL. Should be a quality rotational tackle for the Bills and seems like, in time, he will provide quality leadership and a steadying presence on the D-line. May never be a big play guy, but may at least be a "dirty work" guy who allows others around him to thrive.
4. Ray Davis - Hard running inside guy with great vision, ability to get skinny, contact balance, and underrated breakaway ability. Had the most receiving TDs in 2023 of any SEC running back in 25 years. Should provide a nice change of pace to James Cook without the Bills necessarily losing anything in the pass game when he comes on the field. An older prospect, but I don't care, because he's a running back, and he won't be here past his first contract anyway. Another "likability" and leadership All-Star. Davis should provide steadiness and depth, but doesn't do anything that wows you, and I'm not sure he moves the needle much on offense.
5. Sedrick Van Pran - Tons of starting experience at Georgia. Has some traits reminiscent of Mitch Morse in terms of quickness, twitch, and ability on the move. Stop me if you've heard this one before -- lauded for his leadership. Should provide a good backup plan to Connor McGovern at center and/or provide competition at that position. It will not shock me if this guy is starting by year two. Seems like a great value at this point in the draft. One of my favorite picks.
5. Edufuan Ulofoshio - What do you want me to say? You didn't think the Bills would let a draft pass them by without selecting a late round special teams linebacker, did you? The room is starting to get a bit crowded with Milano, Bernard, Williams, Morrow, Spector, and Ulofoshio. However...the Bills lost ST stalwarts Dodsen, Matakevitch, and Neal, and needed some reinforcements there. That's what Ulo seems to be. I'll be surprised if he ever amounts to more than that, but at this point in the draft, that's what you're getting.
5. Javon Soloman - Undersized speed rusher (though he does have a great wingspan for the position) who had absolutely eye-popping production at Troy, where he out-produced Demarcus Ware and Osi Umenyoira. He can be a designated pass rusher and special teams guy and can learn from his idol Von Miller, after whom he says he models his game. Very much a boom/bust prospect, with seemingly equal potential to be the steal of the draft or an outright bust. I liked this pick a lot, and I'm betting on the former over the latter.
6. Tylan Grable - What do you want me to say? Did you think the Bills were gonna let a draft go by without taking a project offensive tackle late? I don't have much to say about this guy. He's just like Tommy Doyle or Luke Tenuta before him: a developmental tackle prospect who's a long shot to make the 53-man roster. With VanDemark and Collins already in place as backup OTs, it's hard to see this guy making the roster.
6. Daequan Hardy - Special teams guy. Standout punt returner and gunner. I usually look to Bills' late round corners with excitement, because they're usually big-bodied guys with zone eyes who only dropped due to underwhelming athleticism. Hardy does not appear to fit that mold. He appears instead to be a punt return candidate and, beyond that, I'm not sure where he'd fit in. His only hope is as a nickel, but the Bills are obviously set there with Taron Johnson.
7. Travis Clayton - At least this one's fun. A guy from the International Pathways program who has never played a down of football in his life. But he's 6'7", 301 lbs and runs a 4.79. The hope is that he turns into the next Jordan Mailata. A fun story and will be fun to track, but obviously a longshot and likely a practice squad guy at best.
Overall, it was clear that leadership, maturity, and experience were high priorities for the Bills this year. Again and again, they picked guys who were team captains and lauded for their leadership abilities. Given all the leadership that walked out the door this offseason, that certainly makes sense. Again and again, they picked guys with lots of starting experience, guys who shined at the Senior Bowl, and guys who have their heads screwed on straight. Given that they will be counting on some of these guys to contribute from day one, and given that they seem to be doing a bit of a locker room reset, this also makes sense.
The reason that I am ultimately unexcited by this year's draft class is this: I wanted the Bills to prioritize building around Josh Allen. I wanted them to either take a swing for the fences by trading up for a star receiver, or -- failing that -- to go the Packers route and draft a handful of skill position players to surround him with. If they were unable to acquire great quality, then I hoped they would at least acquire quantity. I fear that in choosing Keon Coleman, they may have failed to achieve the "quality" goal, and in refusing to draft any other receivers, they also failed to achieve the "quantity" goal. And Ray Davis is the definition of "uninspiring" at running back. He'll be a fine depth player and grind out tough yards, I'm sure, but he doesn't move the needle much on offense. Neither Coleman nor Davis seem like they upgrade the offense. Just...status quo at best.
In a year where I felt the very TOP priority was to improve on offense, I feel the Bills failed to meaningfully do so. In an offseason where I hoped they'd make a bold move or two to try to find an elite player for this offense, they failed to try. After hearing "Josh needs more weapons" for a couple years running, he now seems to have less. The WR corps seems to have regressed, and seems to lack any true downfield explosiveness or viable deep threat.
This draft class was not a disaster, by any means. it seems FINE. Just fine. Keon Coleman doesn't scream "Alpha WR1" to me. Ray Davis seems like an average NFL backup. Cole Bishop and Javon Soloman seem to perhaps have playmaking potential on defense. Beyond that -- meh.
When the Bills decided to go young and start a roster reset, I had hope that Beane was gonna try to do things differently, since the old way he was doing things didn't get the Bills over the hump. They've been hitting too man singles and doubles over the years and not enough home runs. Instead, he appears to be doing things exactly the same way this time around. He seems to be content to collect character/culture guys, whose ceiling is "good, solid NFL player", rather than taking any risks or big swings for potential stars. He hasn't really taken those swings, to my estimation, since the Allen/Edmunds class. THAT'S why I'm disappointed in this draft class. It seems fine, solid, steady, and logical, but it doesn't seem like it'll move the needle much.
I will move on to hoping that the post June 1st money infusion brings us a quality veteran receiver and maybe a pass rusher either via free agency or trade. Failing that, it would be hard for me to conclude anything other than that it looks like the Bills are poised to take a step back this year. 2025 looks promising in terms of cap space and draft capital, but if it's gonna continue to be "business as usual" for Brandon Beane, then I'm not sure how excited I should allow myself to get for that.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.First, this a great summary of the draft. Good, solid commentary on each pick.
I'm not surprised that you're disappointed; that's what I expected from a lot of people here. And we're getting it from a lot of people, and lot of what people are saying is on point, describing disappointment in one thing or another.
I'm not disappointed. I'm quietly satisfied. I think that Beane acquired a group of guys with real potential to make the roster, from top to bottom. And that's all that anyone could realistically expect. "Nobody in this class makes me stand up and say "that guy's really gonna help the Bills get over the hump and win a title." Of course, nobody makes you stand up say and that, and we pretty much knew that the only pick that would be satisfactory to most in the public was to make a statement at receiver. What else would have been viewed as a real statement? But that would mortgage the future to get one of the great ones, or it would mean spending two early picks on two guys who are projects, hoping that one or both blossom early. Now, we can talk about why the Bills were in that position, but that's where they were.
So what did Beane (and McDermott) do? They drafted a bunch of guys with good chances to make the team. Boring, but a lot of guys that might actually play and contribute and grow into solid starters or role players. Their approach was well, we're not in a position to get a game changer without giving up picks this year and next year, so let's get solid players, who have real shots at contributing and still have upside. And they're character guys, too. I don't see what's wrong with that.
The other side, I suppose, goes like this: Yeah, well, the went conservative. Yes, they got a bunch of solid picks, but someplace in there, they should have been using at least a couple of picks on boom-or-bust guys who if they boom, they are game-changers. Xavier Worthy, for example. The Chiefs took the bet, the Bills didn't. I don't know, but I'd guess Beane would tell you they think Keon Coleman was the guy with the big upside.
It's the same discussion people here were having before the draft, about how to build a passing game. I don't think Bills think having a speed guy is the best addition to the passing game. I think it's clear that they see in Keon Coleman a collection of skills that will make him very valuable in the passing game, sort of a wide-out version of Dalton Kincaid, a wide-out who can be good at lot of things. I think the Bills pick is similar to the 49ers pick. Ricky Piersall was a name that I literally hadn't heard before, a name that wasn't in the usual lists of best prospects. Why'd they take him? Because they think he has the tools to be valuable in the offense they want to run.
From that perspective, the Bills took a big swing in the first round (well, second, technically, after Beane masterfully created some extra draft capital) and got the guy they wanted to bet on.
Given the position they were in, I'd say Beane did a solid job, getting the receiver with the potential to be the missing piece in the receiver room, and getting a collection of guys with potential to contribute at positions where they needed help: safety, running back, d-tackle, o-line (always), corner (always).
I'm sure people can and will put together alternate drafts, showing how the Bills might have gone different ways. Maybe those are other approaches that would make sense and might actually be better. But what Beane did was a solid job in the circumstances, and leaves him well positioned with picks next year.
The undrafted guys look interesting, and there will be some free agent activity in June. By the time camp comes, they'll have a roster McDermott will like to work with, a roster that he thinks he can challenge for the championship with. I'm looking forward to camp. It'll be interesting.
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Doc said:
But most importantly…what does his girlfriend look like?
Maybe there's a Travis-switch in the offing!
-
3 minutes ago, Rockinon said:
Could you imagine this dude in kick off coverage. Who would be willing to block this freight train with a head of steam?
I think this is an important point. He might actually make the team as a special teamer. I know that sounds nuts, but think about it for a minute. Kickoffs are going to be unlike anything we've seen, literally. Every player, including experienced players, are going to be learning completely new tactics about how make those plays. So, unlike the rest of the game, Clayton is not going to be as far behind the curve as any ordinary position player. At least of kickoff coverage. Even on kickoff receiving, he just won't be as far behind the curve.
Then, if he actually could have role on kickoffs, then you start thinking about about place kicking. It's not out of the question to teach him to be an interior line blocker. Not a ton of football complexity there. Eventually, he might report as eligible on the kick coverage team, and he might be a great threat on fakes. And it's not out of the question to put him on the kick block team, either. All stuff he could more quickly than the complexity of playing on the offense or defense.
I just read something that for him to make the practice squad, he has to clear waivers first. He doesn't get a pass to the practice squad. I doubt any team would sign him to their 53, sight unseen, but it is a risk.
-
4
-
-
One thing I like about the Bills' draft philosophy is that they draft guys with real upside. Grable is another. This guy sounds like that he can grow into a quality offensive lineman. Athletic, smart, position flexibility.
I like it.
-
5
-
-
Here are a few thoughts. I've only watch Coleman highlight reels and read a variety of posts here. I admit to being too dumb to find Happy Days' posts here, but apparently he's been on the Coleman bandwagon. Here are my thoughts:
1. I continue to believe that people here have their own ideas about what the Bills need at wideout, and that's why there's so much disappointment. All that means is that the Bills were looking for someone different than what all those people believe. And I'll continue to say that the Bills know more about this than any of us.
2. Having said that, I don't see exactly how they expect Coleman to fit in. I imagined a guy with more speed and more shiftiness. I can see why people say he looks like a Davis replacement.
3. However, I see more than Davis. I always thought Davis's weakness was catching in a crowd, and Coleman look a whole lot better at than than Davis. I get that if I looked at all of his film, I'd see plenty of contested drops, but still, I like the way Coleman positions his body to screen defenders. And the one-handed catch is something Davis could only dream of.
4. I also like the punt returns. Not that the guy is going to return punts for the Bills, but there's a lot of ball carrying skill on display there. That should translate into some yards after catch.
5. Okay. Get out the flamethrowers. Here's what I see in Coleman: Mike Evans lite. A tad slower, a tad smaller, but a guy who despite having less than great measureables, has skills that combine to make a really tough receiver. He's young - 20 - must turn 21 this year - and he'll add some bulk. I think in the red zone, he'll pair nicely with Kincaid and Knox as big targets. I think he'll work as a possession receiver. I think he will get deep sometimes, and we'll be scratching our heads about how he was fast enough to do that. All of which was what I thought about Mike Evans until, after about five years, I had to admit that the guy is just a damn fine receiver, even if he doesn't fit a classic mold.
Coleman is a bit of project, but I love the upside.
-
5
-
3
-
2
-
-
22 minutes ago, Logic said:
The Panthers trade was awesome. The 33rd pick is arguably more strategically valuable than the 32nd, because it's very coveted by multiple teams, and you have an entire day to compare various offers and re-set your board, vs having 10 minutes on the clock at pick 32.
Yes, you give up the 5th year option, but that's only of major consequence for QBs and, as the PFF blurb points out, is not as valuable as it once was for other positions.
The Chiefs move was good in a vacuum, and without it, the Panthers trade could not have happened. Obviously, trading with the hated Chiefs still stings.
Taking emotion out of it, it's hard not to conclude that Beane made intelligent strategic choices.
...But I was still pissed off last night.I wasn't even pissed last night. The moves up for the Bills were valuable.
I like Beane's strategy so far.
I wonder if he has a tentative deal with the Niners for a receiver.
-
3
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Beck Water said:
@Shaw66 you and I pretty much disagree entirely about the value of a "#1" or "X" or "boundary" receiver [in the sense of a guy who is "that good at football" and can get open on his own with some combination of moves, speed, strength and or size], with you saying there isn't a need, WR are a dime a dozen now a days, and teams don't value them because modern offenses just scheme guys open, and me offering various counter-points and data.
But we agree completely on this.
Sell the farm to move up for a guy you think can be the QB for the next 10-14 yrs
But WR? No, the opportunity cost of losing 3 cost-controlled good players, too high.
Absolutely.
17 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:I'm really tired of this narrative.
What I'll say about a WR corps is that I don't believe it's just that it's a sum of all its parts.
Buffalo has had so much success in the passing game since 2020 because of Stefon Diggs. Davis, McKenzie, Beasely, & Shakir have all benefitted over the years in their production largely because of his presence.
Cincy has had so much success over the last few years because of Jamarr Chase. Higgins & Boyd benefitted from his presence.
KC was so successful for years because of 2 HOF pass catching monsters and maybe one of the most talented and unique WRs (even though he's a head case) in NFL history in Hill. Sure... KC won the Super Bowl the last couple years, but their offense very obviously took a massive step backwards.
This team runs through Josh Allen, period. Give him the best weapons possible. That might not be an Odunze in a massive trade up. It might be BTJr or Legette or Worthy... but honestly... if this team isn't looking for whoever they believe "their guy" is at WR in round 1, tonight is a massive letdown.
Buffalo has 10 picks in this draft and is forecasted to have 9 picks next year. Our roster this year is honestly already at the point where there's absolutely no way 10 or even 9 or 8 draft picks make this team.
Trade up! Trade up! Trade up!!!!!
LOL! I love the font!
We don't agree. I agree about using some of those 5th and 6th rounders, but that's not getting the Bills up far enough for one of the studs.
-
13 minutes ago, julian said:
I think his 40 time scared people away, it’s unfortunate for the player but might work out beautifully for a team like the Bills.
I don't study the draft, at all. I just watched some of the Troy Franklin video. I know it's highlights and all, but I like his hands catching, and I like how he tracks the ball. If the Bills can get that kind of talent at 28 (or even trading down and still get him), I don't see much reason to trade up more than 3-4 spots for any other receiver.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Warriorspikes51 said:
If Odunze is the target and gets to Bears pick at 9, they could just take him.
However, they only have 2 picks in the draft after 9.
My offer: 28, 60, 128, 160, 163, 2025 1st
if they counter, we’ll keep one of this year’s picks and add one next year
There is NO player other than a QB that I would trade all those picks for. None. The 28th, 60th and 2025 1st should be three starters, and 128-160-163 collectively have a good chance of being a fourth starter. There is practically no way that the guy you get at 9 could be more valuable than the combined value of four starters.
-
3
-
5
-
4
-
-
10 minutes ago, skibum said:
I just think the Bills have the assets to trade up high enough to get one of the big 3 WR this year. They are already fielding a paper-thin roster. I say just take BPA, suffer through this 2024-5 rebuild, and get it all back on track next year.
Maybe they do have the assets, but there's no question it will cost a lot. The question is whether the difference between the top three guys and the six through tenth guys is worth what it will cost. You might pay $5000 more for the custom interior in your Mercedes, but would you pay $50,000 more?
-
3 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:
so the entire league is wrong, so wrong that theyre inflating the hell outta WR pay like we've never seen before? lol cmon this is crazy talk..... its a passing league
No, that's now what I'm saying, although I am in part. Teams paid big dollars for running backs for several years after it started becoming apparent that the best running backs just weren't worth it. It took teams a while to catch on. I think you'll start to see that happen to receivers. We all were startled when the Chiefs were willing to unload Hill instead of pay him; I think the Chiefs were ahead of the curve.
Everyone seems to think this is a deep receiver class. If that's true, and if I'm right, guys drafted in the second and third round will make splashes around the league this season and next. If that happens, would you rather that Beane (1) traded back and picked up a good receiver and a second pick or (2) traded up for a guy who was only marginally better, giving up draft capital along the way? I would trade back. And what will that mean? It will mean that you don't have to spend big, either in dollars or draft capital, to get a receiver who gets the job done, because if you're running a good offense, there are plenty of guys you can plug into it, and you have a good chance of finding a Deebo (2), a Kupp (3), or a St. Brown (4) outside of round 1.
Now, there's one big caveat, and that is that this thinking is correct (or at least I think it's correct) only until the defenses adjust, as they always do, and the passing games that the best teams run become less effective. Offense will then have to adjust, as they always do, and maybe that adjustment will change the value, again, of receivers. Maybe the new defenses will begin to shut down the short to medium range game, and maybe offenses will counter by putting two or three burners on the field all the time and returning to a quick-strike offense. If that happens, there'll be a real premium on speed. In the meantime, however, teams seem to be valuing someone other than the classic stud #1 guy.
-
3
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, SCBills said:
The thing that I can't wrap my head around is the development of Championship DNA.
And maybe that just comes with winning, and we have to get over the hump to do so.
McDermott owns 13 seconds. I don't who to blame for CIN.. that just seems like an absolute mess all around leading into that game.
Then this year.. injury luck. EVERY. YEAR. KC stays healthy at key positions and we either have big injuries or a depleted roster. KC's WR room.. which couldn't catch a cold all year, played great against us.. and pretty much everyone in the postseason. Conversely, we had to rely on Sherfield due to injury (Beane to blame for WR issues) and he clearly did not step up to the moment. And Diggs.. supposed to be our guy to offset Kelce. And he gets clamped, fumbles, drops passes. Playoff non-factor in big games year in/year out.
And alright, those two are gone. Who's our Jones? Maybe Oliver?... Oliver dominated the Steelers in the WC Game, but then got owned by KC.
What's it going to take to get people to elevate with Josh Allen when it matters?
This is really good. The last sentence particularly. The Bills need a couple of players to rise up and make big plays at the right times. We hoped Diggs would be that guy, and we hoped Miller would be. Miller still has a chance. I don't see Oliver or Rousseau being the guys. They make good plays, but they aren't big play guys. Frankly, I think the guy may be Milano and Bernard together. McDermott's defenses dominated from the linebacker position. One linebacker alone can't dominate, but two can. That's what McDermott had in Carolina.
The thing that bothers me most about McBeane is that they love the very good guys who are steady. That's Oliver and Rousseau. I think they need to have at least a guy or two who make such good plays that you're willing to have them be just average some of the time. Not disappear, but be just average.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, BigDingus said:
I agree, unless we're talking a small trade up just a handful of places.
But definitely not worth the cost to jump from the end of the Draft all the way up into the top 10.
The more I read about how the draft pick value chart came to be, the more broken it seems. It was meant as a snapshot reflecting trades up until that point. But despite how much has changed, teams strated treating it as gospel.
This makes things so much more lopsided in favor of teams that trade back than those trading up. If it's for a QB, it's at least understandable.
I agree, but I think what you describe is the reality of the NFL. In terms of talent, the winning formula is to get a great QB and then fill up the roster with good football players. If you're doing the job right, you add a few studs to the lineup, but it almost doesn't matter what position those studs play. On the Chiefs, they have Kelce and Jones. On another team, it can be guys at other positions.
Since I don't think it makes sense to make a big trade up into the top 10 for anyone other than a QB, it seems to me that that makes a trade back from 28 the smart move. Once you have your QB, the object is to get as many good football players possible, and if a trade back from 28 can get you a second- and a third-round pick, well, two opportunities at a good football player is better than one. You need some studs, for sure, but I think it's a mistake to chase after them. Diggs fell to the Bills easily enough, and Miller did, too. Eventually a guy they draft will emerge, too.
-
1
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Beck Water said:
Now this is interesting. We've been talking about #1 receivers.
I just went back and looked at what you wrote in your post to which I replied. You did not use the phrase "typical stud receiver" or "big tall fast guys". This is what you said:
"I think, in fact, that receivers are becoming a dime a dozen, just like running backs. Successful teams don't need a top-five running back, and I think the passing game already has evolved to the point that they don't need a top-five receiver. I mean, they'll have a guy who is top-five in the stats, but he'll get there by being a scheme fit rather than being a great receiver. I think that's exactly what we've seen in Kansas City. And it's what we've seen in LA and Detroit and SF. "
I'm speaking to the point that guys like Kupp, Samuel, and St Brown are special players, and their teams regard them as special players. They are getting paid like special players. To use Emmanual Acho's term, they are "Freakazoids".
I searched your content for stuff about #1 receivers, stud receivers, and big tall fast guys. Bearing in mind the search engine here has its flaws, I don't find a lot of stuff where you specify that to you, #1 receiver or stud receiver means "tall big fast" to you. In fact, to the contrary. So if that's now what #1 receiver or stud receiver means to you, I'll agree that teams have value for WR who don't fit that mold now a days. But I don't think that's because receivers are a dime a dozen or because they are 'scheme fits', as you said in the post I responded to above.
From your post linked above, you said "A typical #2 is not good to great at getting separation and is not good to great at making contested catches. A guy who is good to great at one or both of those skills is a #1 receiver. People are naming players like Hill and Waddle and Cinci's wideouts. Someone mentioned Gronk and Edelman. They're all #1 receivers. Why? Because they're all good to great at getting open using their own skills, or in Gronk's case they're open when they're covered, so they don't need to separate."
I agree completely with your description of a #1 receiver quoted above, from August of 2023 to be fair. There's nothing in there about "big tall fast guys", and I think that's appropriate. I call to mind something Dawkins said about watching Diggs during an off season throwing session right after Diggs was traded to the Bills. It was something to the effect of "until then, I didn't realize a human could be that good at football".
That's a #1 WR to me: not a "big tall fast" guy, but a human who is "that good at football", who can separate, who can make contested catches, who - as you said in Aug 2023 - is "good to great at getting open using their own skills or is open when covered" or as Dawkins said, is "just that good at football" Jefferson is a #1 WR even though he's not that tall and not that fast, because he has those traits. Amon-Ra St Brown, same.
I believe teams still covet big tall fast guys and super-fast shifty guys who are "just that good at football". The catch (see what I did there?) is that while in theory, these guys superior physical traits should help them get open or be "open when covered". But a lot of times, other things aren't equal, which is why a 5th round receiver like Diggs or a 4th round receiver like Amon Ra St Brown who has enough height and speed but also the hard-to-define ability run deceptive routes, to fake DBs out of their cleats, who have passion and works at their craft, becomes better at football.
I don't believe so many WR get drafted in the first round because they are "decent scheme fits", nor do they get highly paid because of this. They get drafted in the first round because based upon college tape and measurables, GMs believe they will be "a human who could be just that good at football" in the NFL. And that's why they get paid, too, once they prove that's who they are.
Elsewhere, I made the point as far as I can tell, "#1 receiver" is becoming like "franchise QB" used to be on this board BA (before Allen): a term that people define in different ways, without realizing it, resulting in a lot of talking past each other. But in this exchange, it seems to me you are changing up what you're talking about, to insert a definition of #1 WR as a "big tall fast stud" that you weren't stating in your various posts on this topic, and that differs from a definition you have used in previous posts (like last August, quoted above).
I don't agree with you, but that's okay.
I think receivers are becoming a dime a dozen and you just don't see it yet. In fact, you go in the opposite direction - that receivers are becoming a need like a franchise QB, or at least people here seem to talk that way. I agree, they do talk that way, and I think that perception is incorrect.
One way I think you can see what I'm talking about is those three receivers you named who have gotten big contracts - St. Brown, Kupp, and Samuel. They are exactly the right examples. They got drafted in the fourth, third, and second rounds, respectively. That means that these three NFL stars at the position, three guys who at least in terms of money are among the most valuable players at their position, all were viewed as ordinary prospects coming out of college, and that in each case, there were several other guys whom the NFL GMs thought were better prospects to build their teams around. (Note that Shakir is another one - a guy who seems to be developing a more significant role in the offense than his draft status would suggest.) Why has this happened? Because what NFL teams need at receiver has changed from five years ago, just like the change that began at running back maybe 15 years ago.
Those guys are getting money from their teams that KC didn't give to Tyreek Hill. Why didn't the Chiefs pay Hill? Well, I wasn't in the room, but I think it was because they could see that the colleges were turning out a lot of guys who didn't have Hill's speed but who were fast enough, guys who could be plugged into an effective offense at a fraction of the cost of Tyreek Hill. In other words, they could see that, given what they wanted from receivers, receivers were a dime a dozen. I think that is exactly why Beane seemed to be saying the other day that he wasn't concerned about the receiver position and that he would love to have a true #1 but it isn't necessary. We can argue about what exactly he meant, but I think what he meant is that he doesn't need a Justin-Jefferson-type game changer.
I've lived my whole life as a Bills fan thinking the Bills need a stud #1, and that was probably true for several decades. It certainly was true when the Bills were going to the Super Bowl. I'm pretty sure it's not so true any longer. I think a stud QB, good starting role players, and good coaching is what's needed.
-
3 hours ago, Fan in Chicago said:
Simply keeping up with the Chiefs means we will stay one step behind. We need to leap frog them. With weapons to over come the gap in coaching
I really think it's a fool's errand to expect that superior talent can over come mediocre coaching. I think it's a strategy that works, at best, for a year or so, but then you're quickly stuck again with talent that matches every other team. This happens because of the draft, the cap, and free agency. Every team's roster turns over quickly. I think the average is something like a third of your roster changes from year to year. Now, granted, that's weighted toward the lower end of the roster, but there are significant departures almost annually, and certainly over three years. QB is the only position that doesn't turn over. If you have your starter, you keep him. Left tackle is next.
Because of the roster turnover, it's a coaches' league. And because it's a coaches' league, you're always going to be in a hole if you don't have quality coaches. As I said yesterday, Dorsey was a serious mistake. Daboll was decent, and we'll see about Brady, but the Bills essentially wasted two seasons by letting Dorsey run the offense.
If you believe, as I do, that Reid's talent at designing and implementing offense is a major part of the Chiefs' success, I think you also can see how unlikely it is that the Bills could accumulate so much talent that they could overcome what Reid does. His offensive success essentially means that he makes every player on offense better, and it isn't possible to upgrade every position on defense so that the talent of your players overcome the advantage they have because of coaching.
The Bills need a really good OC, and they need to hold on to him for several seasons. I think Brady could be the guy, but I don't know. This season will tell us a lot. The Bills will have the offensive roster they want - yes, even at wide receiver - they'll have an offensive line they have confidence in, and of course they have the QB. It's very much up to Brady, and a part of that is driven by the leadership he gets from McDermott.
1 hour ago, Mat68 said:I think a 2nd next year is in the chamber. If they can go all the way up next years 1 instead of a 2nd is in play.
I agree about the second, not the first. He said it his presser - it's no fun sitting in on the first night of the draft with no pick. My own rule is that major trade ups in the first round are prudent only for a QB - no other position is worth the draft capital it costs.
-
1
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, stuvian said:
We found out the hard way that Miller needs a Chubb. he's ineffective by himself. I'd rather have a platoon of 9 sack guys we can rotate on fresh legs than one guy who can get 20 sacks but gets double teamed.
Of the subject, but I'm amazed that people seem to have amnesia about 2022. Playing in a rotation on the Bills' defensive line, he had 8 sacks in less than 11 games, and he was pretty much the same disruptive force he'd been in previous years. He was on a better pace than 2021. And, by the way, in 2021 he had four sacks in four playoff games.
I think Miller is an unknown quantity going into this season, but I will not be surprised, not surprised at all, if he has double digit sacks.
6 minutes ago, Thrivefourfive said:Why is everyone behaving like the Jets don’t have enough weapons?? Rodgers is there to make everyone better.. why is the narrative now that Rodgers needs more weapons more weapons more weapons? He has enough. Jesus, you’d think he was a liability like Manning’s last year. 😡
For the same reason everyone here says, year after year, that Allen doesn't have enough weapons.
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
I would love to mimic what those teams have done but that is going to come from a coaching change, not from intentionally diluting our talent. I know you like McDermott more than I do but even you have to admit we have seen enough of his career to know that he isn't an elite coach. I don't trust him to ever put on a defensive coaching masterclass like Steve Spagnuolo just did in the AFCCG and Super Bowl. Our offense is never going to be as creative and meticulously designed as Kyle Shanahan's. Those are pie in the sky outcomes at this point. The only way we are going to beat teams with that caliber of coaching is by simply overwhelming them with top tier talent.
Beane has described Curtis Samuel as a "weapon" not as a WR. He is the plus-plus version of what we tried to get for cheap with McKenzie and Harty. I don't think his signing tells me anything about what the Bills want to do. They have wanted that gadget player since Daboll was here, and Beane finally just threw his hands up and paid a mid-sized contract to get a good one once and for all.
I don't agree we need to spend an enormous amount of draft capital. Keeping to the topic of this thread, I am not one who is banging the drum to trade way way up the board for Harrison or Nabers. If Odunze makes it to 9 that's where my appetite for trading up begins, and even then I would not want to give up this year's 2nd. My preferred strategy is trade down, draft a WR with our first pick, then trade up in the 2nd round to draft another WR. I would double dip from this incredibly deep pool of top 50 caliber WR prospects and bet on one becoming a superstar and the other becoming pretty good, and still have plenty of picks this year and next to continue building the rest of the roster. But I would rather trade way up than say take an EDGE in the 1st and get whatever slim pickings is left at WR at #60. We HAVE to maximize our chances of getting a top tier WR out of this draft. Trade way up or double dip, that's the move.
And I don't agree that top-tier coaching can't over come less-than-elite coaching. As recent examples I would point to the 2017 Eagles, the 2020 Bucs, the 2021 Bengals, and the 2022 Eagles. It's certainly much harder, and that will be our handicap until Pegula makes the tough decision to move on, but it's doable.
All thoughtful stuff. Thanks. Basically, we don't agree, and I'm good with that.
I like your draft strategy, but I seriously doubt that that strategy is going to land a talent who will transform the passing game. I doubt the Bills are getting 1000 yards out the guy they take at 28 or early in the second. The difference between you and me is that you seem to think they will. You're essentially saying take 2 of the top 10 and one will work out. Okay, but I doubt it. I'm saying that they only need to take one, because they only need him to be a 600-800 yard guy.
As for Samuel, I don't think they think he's the gadget guy the other guys couldn't become. He's had, I think, a 1000 yard season. He's a gadget guy like Deebo. They want him running routes, which he's good at, and they want to line him up in the backfield because he can actually take handoffs and follow blocks AND he can run routes out of the backfield. But this, too, is just you and I reading different things into what Beane said.
I won't argue with you about how some teams got good in the recent past. You may be right. However, I will point out that the Bengals got good by landing two, not one but two, wideouts who are as good or better than the best single wideout the Bills will find by Friday night. And that model hasn't worked so well for the past couple of years.
I like you comment about McDermott. I think he's a great, great coach, but I agree that he isn't a defensive mastermind. Might have grown into one if he stayed as a DC, but his skill at leading men meant he was destined to be a HC. I think he'll always have a really good defense, but because it may only rarely be great, it's important that he has an OC who is special. I wasn't a huge Daboll fan, and as I said, Dorsey was not at all the guy. I won't make any judgments about Brady until December and January.
-
5 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:
I'm prepared to be disappointed tomorrow, I hope I'm wrong tho
Well, I don't agree with you or Happy about what the Bills need, but I am not going to be disappointed tomorrow. Beane and McDermott know what they want, and they have a plan. They will have a receiver by Friday night, and that receiver will be a success. He will be a success because the Bills will need him to get only 600-800 yards, and there apparently are a lot of guys in the draft who will be able to do that. They'll do it because they won't be asked to do too much, just run the routes and catch the ball when you're open. Someone else - Kincaid, Shakir, or Samuel - will go over 1000. Or maybe it'll be the rookie. It might even be two guys going over 1000.
I'm confident it will work, assuming Brady can deliver the kind of offense that's expected.
-
3 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
At the end there you named the 4 best offensive coaches in the NFL. Another team I would point to with your philosophy is the Packers. Not so coincidentally that would round out the top 5 offensive coaches in the NFL.
We aren't at that caliber of offensive coaching, not even close IMO. I like Brady overall but let's be realistic. With a coach of his caliber you need top tier offensive talent to have a top tier offense.
And in general we should really stop using the Chiefs as any kind of measuring stick. They got shutout in the 2nd half of the AFCCG and the 1st half of the Super Bowl. Think about that - they got shut out in consecutive halfs in their final two games and they won the freaking Super Bowl doing it. They did this a few years after drafting a RB in the 1st round, a couple years after trading away the best WR in the NFL, in a season where they had a below average LT. No team should be trying to replicate their strategy. Their coaching staff is in another stratosphere compared to everybody else which means they can get away with things that no other franchise can.
We don't need to be like any other team. We need to be the best possible version of the Bills, and the best possible version of the Bills absolutely has a top tier pass catcher to make up for its lack of top tier coaching.
I hear you, but I don't think you're correct about this. The commonly used phrase is "It's a copy cat league." It is, and there's a reason for that. The reason is it's very hard to win in the league, and it's very hard to be good at offense, because the good defenses know how to stop all but the best offenses. It's natural, therefore, that teams will try to mimic what the good teams are doing. Nobody's mimicking the Cardinals.
We've seen the same thing on defense, with everyone going to one and two high safeties all the time to take away the deep ball. McDermott was one of the early proponents, and that's what made the Bills D so tough beginning a few years ago. The defense that everyone has copied is one of the reasons we've seen this move to a different style of passing attack.
I keep saying that the signal was that the Bills went after Samuel. He's one of the best players in the league playing the style that the good offenses have (other than the very best, who are on those good teams we're talking about). Getting Samuel when they already had Shakir and Kincaid tells something about what the Bills intend to do.
Now, I hear you about Brady. It's one thing to be able to copy the style that others are playing, it's another thing to be able copy it and then innovate from week to week so that your receivers are attacking different defenses in different ways. I don't know if Brady is that guy. We'll find out.
Going your own way, what you suggest the Bills should do, isn't a good strategy. If you don't have good coaching, which is your premise, then you can't expect your coaches to create a passing offense that works as well as the best passing games. In addition, the reason it's a copy cat league is that the innovators are finding the only way to succeed, and it works only until the defenses adjust, at which point it's up to the offensive innovators again. The Bills can't get a top-tier receiver without spending an enormous amount of draft capital, but even if they could, top-tier talent won't save mediocre coaching.
For all his trials and tribulations on defense, I think the worst decision McDermott has made was investing in Dorsey. He truly was mediocre or worse, and that hurt the Bills for the past two seasons.
The shortest route to an championship caliber offense is to copy the passing schemes of the best teams and then let the most physically gifted QB in the league execute it.
-
Just now, SoonerBillsFan said:
Yep that's what I meant. Pain meds and auto correct do not mix 😁. This is why I think we stand pat at 28, or trade down, and take Franklin either scenario.
And I've been reading posts that Thurman did earlier in this thread, talking about the fact that teams don't do well trading up into the top of the first round. I've often thought that you do it for a QB, but no other position is worth it. One receiver is very rarely as valuable as the three guys you would have drafted if you kept the picks. I mean, if I knew it was Jerry Rice, okay, but Jerry Rice isn't available. In fact, in the modern NFL, Jerry Rice probably isn't as valuable as the real Jerry Rice was.
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, SoonerBillsFan said:
I feel they want an interchangeable WR. Damn good speed, but more importantly able to separate and catch consistently. When you do that you can't key on a play like defenses have in the past based on personnel.
We would be a team that could have Shakir, Samuel or Rookie, in any of the possessions at any given time.
I think you meant positions, not possessions.
Yes, you and I have been saying this for a while. I think the handwriting was on the wall when they got Samuel. And add Kincaid in there. And Cook. They want to put a bunch of guys out there that are interchangeable.
I wrote something a few days ago about the fact that McCaffrey is so much more valuable than Saquon. When McCaffrey was in college I just didn't get how good he was. I thought he was a great college player who would stumble in the pros. Well, no. He's great, and he's great because he's good enough to be a good starting running back and (almost) a starting receiver. That's a weapon. Singletary was that kind of back, just not as good.
I very much think that body type doesn't determine a valuable receiver. I don't like Metcalf, even though he has one of the all-time great bodies - size and speed. Heart, quickness, change of direction, brains. That's what wins now.
-
1
-
-
57 minutes ago, Beck Water said:
You've been banging that "WR don't really matter, teams don't need a top 5 WR, receivers are a dime a dozen" drum in several threads now.
Counterpoint: I don't know about "top 5 WR" that seems arbitrary. But here's some evidence about how the teams you cite think about that "they'll have a guy who's top 5 in the stats but he'll get there by being a scheme fit rather than a great receiver" philosophy. TL;DR they're voting with their $$ on that.
1) Detroit just signed their #1, 119 reception, 1515 yd wide receiver Amon Ra St Brown to a 4 year, $120M contract with $77M guaranteed. Why would they do that, if receivers are becoming a dime a dozen and successful teams don't need a top WR, just a "scheme fit"?
2) I don't think Deebo Samuel was signed to a 3 year , $71,550,000 contract with the San Francisco 49ers, including $24,035,000 signing bonus, $58,100,000 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $23,850,000 because the '49ers thought he was "just a scheme fit" where WR are a "dime a dozen"
And Christian McCaffrey's a unicorn - part receiver, part running back, and 100% perfect for the Niners, but that team didn't trade away the core of their 2023 draft board (2nd, 3rd, 4th plus 2024 5th), but either way, SF didn't give up that much with the right to pay him $14M this season on top of it because they thought Christian McCaffery was a "dime a dozen" as either a receiver or an RB
3) LA Rams signed Kupp to a 3 year, $80M extension in 2022 of which $75M were guaranteed because they view WR as a "dime a dozen" after his 145 reception, 1947 yd season. They appear to have lucked out with Puka Nacua, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that league-wide talent evaluators weren't saying "see, any old WR could succeed in that system" (if that were true, what stopped 2nd round pick Van Jefferson? What stopped 2nd round pick Tutu Atwell?
It's a nice hypothesis but it doesn't seem to stack up against how the teams you mentioned are actually spending their $$.
You missed the point. It's not that some guys aren't valuable. Those guys you name are extraordinarily valuable. And they put up nice stats. They just don't fit the stud receiver mold. They aren't tall, they aren't big, and they aren't fast. They have other skills that make that, combined with decent size and speed, makes them valuable.
I've been talking to people here about the fact that the typical stud receiver - the big, tall, fast guys - aren't the kind of guys that teams are looking for now. Blazing speed is nice, but not necessary. Size is nice, but not necessary. There are a lot of guys with measurables like Samuel and St. Brown and Kupp, they're all over the place. What teams are looking for is guys with with decent size and speed and who are good scheme fits.
-
1
-
-
Mikey, I like your point, and I think there is another reason that makes a particular physical type less important than it used to be, and that is scheme. The game has evolved a lot over the last 70 years, and one of the important ways it has evolved is that body type has become less important. In the old days, a split end looked like this and a flanker looked like that. Gary Collins and Paul Warfield, for example. A tight end looked like Ernie Warlick. A tight end like Pete Retzlaff was a real oddity, and the Eagles played him even though he didn't have a body to block like a tight end.
The problem with having particular body types for particular positions was that the body type dictated the kinds of plays you could run with the guy. So, for example, the defense always knew where the deep threat on the field was - just find the flanker. You didn't need to worry about the split end going deep, because his body type made him a solid, physical athlete, but not a speedster.
So, the game evolved, and the sizes of the players all converged. Now there are a lot guys playing between, say 205 and 240. Linebackers, corners, receivers, running backs. Even some edge players. Why? Because they can do more things, and therefore they and their offense is less predictable. Ideally, every player runs 4.3, but so long as you have several under 4.5, that's good enough to have multiple players who can challenge the defense. So long as you have enough guys in the 220 pound range, you can play as physically as is necessary, at least in the regular season.
The more you rely on a stud player, the more predictable your offense is. When you offense is predictable, it's easier to scheme against. By having a lot of guys who are multiple, you are less predictable, and less predictable makes you tougher to stop.
I think Lebron and Davis make the Lakers predictable, and that's why they've had so much trouble building a winner around them.
-
1
-
1
-
Rd 2, Pick 60: DB Cole Bishop, Utah
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
This. I think Bishop is Bernard-2.0. I get the impression that the safety job, as McDermott has designed it, is about the most-challenging position on the defense from a mental point of view, perhaps even more difficult than MLB. It requires a deep understanding of what's going on pre-snap and adjusting, and then adjusting again post-snap. And it requires being on the same page with the other safety.
Bishop apparently is smart - you can see in his presser that he's quite clear about what he needs to learn to play, and he understands that much of it is going to be brand new. But we all saw Bernard in his rookie season - it simply isn't easy to transition out of college into those roles.
I'll probably say this several times in the next few days, but I think the challenge for the Bills this season will be to get out of the first half of the season without losing too many games to be able to contend for the Division and the playoffs. I think it won't be until the second half of the season that we will begin to see the real impact of the rookies. Coleman, Bishop, Carter, Van Pran-Granger, Davis, even a late rounder or two, all have good shots at meaningful snaps as the season progresses.
And I'll say one other thing several times, too: I think there's a good chance that a lot of people here are going to be surprised by Coleman. The more I read about him, the more I think Brady is going to find a way to get him open. When Josh is scrambling, who has been go-to guy been? Increasingly last season, it was Shakir and Kincaid. I think Coleman will quickly become another go-to, and Samuel may be a fourth. I'm starting to think that if Josh has the poise of a great QB - and he's already awfully good - he's going to be awash in options.