Shaw66

Beck, I think you're talking about of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you say you want a stud #1 and you question what Beane is doing. On the other hand, you don't want to pay someone like Aiyuk, because it might go wrong. Well, trading up to get a stud might go wrong, too. One thing about Beane is that he's fearless. He wasn't afraid to trade up for Allen, he wasn't afraid to trade up for Edmunds, he wasn't afraid to deal for Diggs, he wasn't afraid to go get Miller. He's going to look at what opportunities he has, and he won't shy away from pulling the trigger. And I think you misperceive the reality of 2024 NFL offense. A true #1 may have been necessary in 2019, but multiple offenses last season, several of the best, operated without a true #1. One way to understand the difference between then and now is to think about whether you'd rather have Saquon Barkley or McCaffrey in you backfield. In my mind, it's quite clear that McCaffrey is much more valuable in current NFL offenses. Stud specialists, like Barkley and Henry, and I think Jefferson and Chase, aren't as valuable in offenses as guys who are multiple. That's why the Bills got Cook, and that's why the Bills got Samuel. And that's why Beane said he doesn't think he needs a true #1. He's looking for a talented guy who is smart, athletic, can run a complex route tree, can block, etc. etc. etc. If somehow a stud #1 falls to him, great, he'll take him. But he doesn't see it as a need. What he needs is another multi-talented guy to go with Cook, Shakir, Samuel, and Kincaid. That's what McDermott and Brady have asked Beane to find. I remember when the Bills got Diggs, I was excited because it was, in my words, an upgrade at three positions. They got a true #1, they got a better #2 my sliding Brown into that role, and they got a better #3 by moving Beas to his natural position. Well, offenses don't have clear 1s, 2s, and 3s any more. Offenses are multiple. They want five skill players on the field, each of whom can attack all areas on the field. The 49ers are the best example. Neither Samuel nor Aiyuk was a true #1, but man, those two plus Kittle and McCaffrey cause headaches. That's what Beane is after.

Since you and Dawg keep saying it, I went back to the presser. Go to 12:30 10 about 13:30. He says, yes, a true #1 is nice. He said, "i'd like to have two." Then he said in their offense a truee 1 isn't necessary, but he also said something like, "hey, if a #1 is available in the draft or somewhere, yes." That's when he starts talking about needing a true one to support Josh early in his career. It's very clear how Beane operates. He's said often that if he can see a way to make the team better, he's going to do it. In the presser he said if a #1 is available, he's interested. It's the same point, and it's not surprising. He didn't say he didn't want a #1. He said in this offense he doesn't need a #1, but he clearly stated that if he can get one, he's interested. It's a completely unremarkable thing to say. His problem is that he doesn't have the draft capital to trade up high enough to get the stud receivers in the draft, so a #1 isn't likely. But as I said, if the Niners aren't going to keep Aiyuk, they might find that the best they can do in a trade is a #1 this year and some other capital thrown in (just like the Diggs deal), Beane DOES have enough capital to do that. As I've said, I'm not predicting it. All I'm saying is that it is among the possibilities as next week unfolds.

I'm not going to go back through the press conference and find, but I think he said it very clearly. It was in the discussion about whether he needed to get a Diggs again, and yes, he said he didn't need to. He said, essentially, what I said a couple weeks ago - that the Bills are comfortable playing with a lot of good receivers without a stud. But as he was saying that, he also said something like, "of course, it's always nice to have one of those guys." I thought it was very clear - if a stud falls our way and he fits into our plans, then, sure, we'll do it. It's just that he doesn't feel the need to do it. He just needs another good contributor. When i was talking about it earlier, I said that one of Shakir and Kincaid and Samuel is going to go over 1000 yards, and all they need is another guy to get 500 or 600. I really think they're thinking that. That additional guy be a first or second round rookie who has the potential to become a #1 or it could be someone else. But, just as an example, if nothing breaks right in the draft, it could be D Hopkins or OBJ. They're going to do something. They need another receiver. The point is he DIDN'T say "we are NOT looking for a #1." He said everyone would like to have one of those studs, but the clear implication was that the Bills don't think they need one. What I said above is that if, and I have no idea whether it could happen, but if what the Niners need in a trade for Aiyuk is affordable to Beane will pursue it. He'd be crazy not to. And I'm not talking about next year's #1 - yes, he was clear, and I agree, that he should trade next year's #1. But this year's 1 and 2 to get a proven, stud receiver who could give the Bills one of the very best receiver groups for the next three years, I think Beane would pull the trigger on something like that. The bottom line is that he and McDermott are building a team. Spending here means they can't spend there. They make decisions like that all the time. They want a receiver. There are a lot of different kinds of receivers available. They're going to make a choice. Remember Beane talking about drafting Edmunds? He said preparing for that draft he went through dozens and dozens of scenarios, but none of the scenarios included getting Allen AND still have a shot at Allen. But it happened. What I'm really saying is that if the 49ers call on draft day with an offer, Beane and McDermott are going to try to figure out how to do it. All options are on the table.

Dawg - My interpretation of what he said about his different from yours. I'm not predicting a move to get one of those guys, but I don't think he suggested he wouldn't do it. As you say, he did say that when he made the deal for Diggs, he was looking for help for Allen, because Brown and Beasley couldn't carry the offense. And yes, he said that he doesn't have to make a move like that now, because Allen has progressed. But he also didn't say, and I don't think he implied, that he wouldn't acquire a receiver by trading a draft pick. He also was clear that he'd like to have a true number 1 guy. He just said that the Bills no longer need the guy to support Allen in that way. Beyond that, it's clear that he intends to add to the receiver room. From that, I think the correct conclusion is that Beane is going to do what he's always done - survey the options and make a decision. Just as he did with Diggs, if the best option is to package his first with other assets to get a proven wide out, he'll do it. He might trade up, he might stick, he might trade down, and he might get his receiver by making a deal. If the 49ers are listening to trade offers, they may be finding that they can't get the compensation they hoped (because of what it will cost for his new team to keep him), they might like the idea of getting a first round pick and moving Aiyuk out of the NFC. If that's the conclusion they're coming to, I don't think Beane said anything today that would preclude his making a move with them.

Makes sense. He is completely clear that he doesn't need a star receiver at number one and that he just needs to add some quality receiving talent. Given that, the trade back makes a lot of sense, because he can get a quality receiver in the second round and pick up a quality player at another position, as well.

That guy is going to be Von Miller.

An interesting way to look at 2024. I didn't study it in depth, but I have these reactions: I actually one of the three key receivers will go over 1000 yards. Could be any of Kincaid, Shakir, or Samuel. I think that would happen on the assumption that the Bills use #28 to get the best receiver available, meaning the receiver who fits the Bills needs the best. That guy doesn't have to produce 1000 yards. All he has to do is produce 500-600. Essentially, I think what can happen in that scenario is that one of the three the Bills currently have will move up to replace Diggs as the 1000-yard guy, and the rookie will move in to replace the 500 yards, more or less, that the guy who's replacing Diggs got last season. Completely plausible in my mind. The longer I've considered this, I think the receiver problem will be solved without drastic measures. Now, I worry more about having two quality safeties and having enough depth at corner.

Beck - Its all just noise. We go looking for news, but there is no news. Then we stuck on somethung that was written to catch our eye. Sometimes its more or less correct, sometimes it isn't, but it's all just noise. Yesterday the Boston Globe said the Bills werent active in free agency because the Pegulas are unhappy with the results they're getting and tightened the purse strings. Huh? Unless it is written by the usual people who follow the Bills, it is just noise.

I dont think Brady agrees with you. At least one of Samuel and Shakir will get a lot of snaps at wideout.

Nice thread, guys. Interesting discussion. I get Dawg's theory, but I'm not yet convinced that Shakir can be that guy. He needs to take another step, and I'm not sure that's happening. I do think there's a a hidden benefit to Diggs' departure along the lines of what Dawg said, which is that the Bills no longer have a receiver who's demanding targets. And he did demand targets. It was quite obvious that the game plan always included early throws to Diggs, and I think those targets were intended to keep him happy, not necessarily to cause the defense to focus on him. My guess is that Shakir is an important piece in what we'll see from Brady's offense. I think we're going to see receivers running slants, crossers, quick outs, the occasional wheel route out of the backfield, and wideouts going deep when the defense leave them in favorable matchups. Shakir can do all of that. Samuel can do all of that. Kincaid more or less does all of that. And I think there's likely to be a rookie out there doing the same things. I think it's going to look like what the Lions and the 49ers did last season with a bunch of receivers who run good routes and who like having the ball in their hands. The receptions will be spread around among a lot of guys. Who's going to lead that group? Well, the Bills have to replace the 1900 receiving yards that Diggs and Davis got last season. Kincaid will get some, maybe 300. The rookie will get 500 (unless the Bills make a major move and get one of the big three in the draft). Shakir and Samuel both had 600 yards last season, and they will get most of the 1100 additional yards that need to be recovered. My money would be on Samuel being the 2024 leading receiver at 1300, with Shakir second around 1000, but I could see it fall the other way.

I understand your logic, but I wouldn't do it. Teams need stud players, and I wouldn't trade one just to have a shot at another.

I agree with Thurm. Giving up those picks has long-term consequences. I wouldn't do it. Plus, I wouldn't build a receiver room around Metcalf.

I'm not sure it's so far-fetched.

Ooh. Thanks. That was among the things I didn't know. So Dion's not a candidate. Who else might attract attention? Spencer Brown? No other lineman. No linebacker. Oliver and Epenesa probably have big cap hits, too. Cook could be a candidate. The reality is that if the Bills wanted to package a player and the first round pick to move way up, it would have to be a good player. There aren't many of those on the roster who aren't either untouchable or carry big cap hits. Well, I don't disagree, but I know that Beane has a knack at surprises. The reason I asked the question was to hear people speculate about how Beane might pull a rabbit out of a hat. If you think it's impossible to get up to the top 10, then I'd be looking for Beane to go after a quality number one who's already in the league.

Well, he positioned himself for the Allen pick by first trading Glenn and picks to get #12. I don't see how he can into the top 10 just trading picks. He doesn't have the capital. But a player and his first could get him there. Bills aren't trading Dawkins (or Spencer Brown?) to move up and expecting to get his replacement in the draft, so it doesn't matter how strong the tackle draft is. The replacement would have to be on the team or available in free agency. Edit: Whoops, Dawg just said that. As someone said - he's just a good bet to do something.

As I've tried to digest the hole left by Diggs' departure, I don't for a minute think that Beane is going to sit back and just do the best he can when his pick rolls around late in the first round. That just isn't his style. We've often seen Beane move around in the first round, and I think we will see it again. He's done little moves, of course, up a pick or two or three, but we've seen at least two big moves: Cordy Glenn and picks to move up to Cinci's pick (followed by the trade with Denver to go up and get Josh), and the Bills' first round pick to get Diggs. Two big draft-related moves to fill a hole. It caused me to wonder what kind of things Beane could be considering now. Others of you will have much better ideas than I, and I don't really know how to gauge value, cap, and all the other things that need to be considered, but two thoughts came to mind. Maybe the Vikings want to make a bold move to get up to the top of the draft. Maybe they have a vision for the future of a rebuilt roster. Maybe they don't want to write a big check for a receiver. Would they trade Justin Jefferson for the Bills' #1 and some other consideration? They did it with Diggs, why not again? Is Aiyuk still on his first contract? Who else has a proven receiver with a contract the Bills can afford for a year? Or, more along the Cordy Glenn line, who's the quality starter the Bills might package with their first round pick to move up to the top 10? Does Kromer like Van Demark so much that he'd be willing to part with Dion Dawkins. Dion and the Bills #1 for the Giants' #1? What other players are good enough to bring interest but not so good that they're untouchable? Whatever, we can be sure that Beane is doing some creative thinking.

No, I didn't. I said that on-script, Burrow is demonstrably better, which he is. Burrow has a higher completion percentage, better TD-Int ratio. He runs his offense more effectively. I said that off-script, he isn't as good as Allen, which he isn't. Off-script, there's no one like Allen.

I think Herbert looks like a million bucks, but he plays for the Chargers. After several decades, Mr. Wilson convinced me that, just like everything else, there are people who are good at owning an NFL franchise and there are people who aren't good. There's a reason the Chargers are perennial mess, and it starts at the top.

No, Transplant. You're talking about what offense the Bills coaches choose to run. I'm talking about how well Allen executes the offense he's given to run. Those are two different things. The Bills do not give Allen plays with complex route trees and tell him to ignore half the routes. They do not do that. They give him plays just like the plays that every other team, including the Ravens, give to their QBs, and they expect him to execute those plays just like every other quarterback. Yes, the Bills may have some plays they give to Allen that most other teams don't give to their QB, but whatever they give him, they expect him to execute the entire play. The Bills offense is not sandlot football.

Thanks for this. For years after the SI story, people made reference to Sidd Finch. It was an ongoing joke.

It seems you've missed the point entirely. I am not talking about how often Josh carries the ball. I'm talking about how effectively Josh executes the offense he's given to operate. The question isn't how many times Josh ran the ball. The question is how effectively he executed the offense as designed. If he had an option to pass or run, did he choose the right option? Did he execute the fake properly? If it was a designed run, did he make the right cut. In the passing game, which is what most of us have been talking about, did he make the right read? Did throw to the guy he was supposed to? Was he too late coming to a receiver? It has nothing whatsoever with how many times he carried the ball. How a QB executes the offense is the QB's most important job. He's the coach on the field. He's the leader. He's the decision maker. Josh's physical skills are important, of course, but if physical skills determined who's the best QB, Michael Vick would have been the MFP five years in a row and won four Super Bowls. There never has been a QB with his physical skills. And Cam Newton was not too far behind. Brock Purdy was in the MVP discussion in 2023, and his physical skills make him look like a high school kid when he's compared to Josh. He was in the MVP discussion because he ran their offense with tremendous precision and effectiveness. The simplest measure, at least one of them, is passer rating. He's 34 on the all-time passer rating list, behind 13 QBs who are still active, and behind retired guys like Brees, Brady, Romo, Manning. When a guy has a high passer rating, he's completing a high percentage of passes and his TD to INT ratio is low, like 3-1. Josh has been 3-1 once, in 2020. Mahomes, Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Tom Brady all are better than 3-1 for their careers. That's a tell-tale sign that Josh hasn't made decisions, hasn't executed the offense, as well as he's supposed to. When he's throwing for 29 TDs and I8 INTs, as he did in 2023, he ain't there yet. And don't tell me about his running. To get up to 3-1 in 2023, Josh would have needed 25 rushing touchdowns - which would put him in the top five all-time. That ain't happening. Josh needs his extraordinary physical abilities just to overcome his deficiencies in the execution of the offense. He's not bad at executing the offense, just not great. He's not a bad quarterback, but this isn't a discussion about bad quarterbacks. It's a discussion about great quarterbacks. I've been saying for years that when Josh masters the mental part of the game, and he's making good progress, we will see perhaps the greatest QB of all time.

Cool data. Thanks. I think you're wrong. I don't believe 31 coaches in the league tell their QB look at youth 3rd and fourth option and Brady tells Josh to tuck it and run. Don't believe it for a.minute. McDermott is much too buttoned down for that. Josh has assignments like everyone else, and he's still learning to execute them properly. He gets graded on his execution. The Bills offense is not predicated in Josh being Josh. I'm sure of it.

Excellent point. And coach can talk to the QB between plays.

Reid DID become a better coach, little by little, year by year. Yes, he needed luck, but his success now came from years of hard work and improvement. Because success in football is complicated.

I won't be shocked. It's coming.