Shaw66

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.

I've always thought this philosophy is wrong, for the reasons I've just stated. Success in the NFL is dependent on a high percentage of positive plays. In football, the team game that requires more teamwork and more coordination than any other sport, a player who makes big plays by going off script and who, as a result, makes big mistakes from time to time, is a player who contributes to your failure, not to your success. With 30 seconds to go in the game, down four points and on the opponents' 30 yard line, an interception on a throw into the end zone is NEVER a good play. NEVER. If your QB's "style of play" is to go for it, you have the wrong quarterback. Unless it is literally the last play of the game, every coach wants his QB to make the right play, not the high-risk, high-reward play.

This is completely off the subject. This thread started out about Josh and whether he's being fairly or unfairly criticized. It evolved, a bit, into whether Josh does his job as well as he should. You're talking about who should bear the responsibility when the team underperforms. That is a completely different subject. Your bolded language makes the point. Who ever has had a job where their job performance is measured relative to how some other employee did their job? No one, that's who. "Well, General Custer, it is unfortunate about that battle, but you outperformed your soldiers that day, so you get an A for the Little Bighorn." Josh, like every quarterback, must be evaluated on objective performance criteria. Fans to a great extent, and coaches to some extent, do it based on common data, like completion percentage, yards per completion, etc. But I think that teams and coaches also use far more sophisticated criteria, objective and subjective. Each play is evaluated by what Josh was supposed to do, and what he actually did. In a perfect world, your QB does what he is supposed to do 100% of the time. That's executing the offense. What fans tend to do with Josh is overemphasize what he accomplishes off script, and particularly overemphasize the WOW! off-script plays. Nobody claims that Josh is better than Tom Brady, but Josh's off-script percentage is almost certainly better than Brady's. Brady gave up on plays all the time - when it went off script, particularly if he had pressure on him, he went down. Josh's off-script plays are good and important, but more important is to get a very high percentage on the on-script plays. One measure of success on on-script plays is whether you got positive yardage. I've said often that choosing the 30-yard throw with a 50% completion probability is not as good a decision as the 8-yard throw with an 85% completion probability. Stringing together positive plays is vey important in a league where the defenses are designed to deny big plays. And, in 2023, particularly early in the season, we saw Josh doing just that - he had a very high completion percentage in the first five or six games of the season, taking the easy, short throw over and over. The yards piled up, and the Bills rolled over opponents. None of that has anything to do with how well the linebackers played, or even how well the offensive line played. Even when the line sucks, Josh's performance is graded on what he's supposed to do under the circumstances. When someone misses a block and Josh throws the ball away to avoid a sack, the coaches don't just ignore that play for evaluation purposes. He's evaluated on whether he should have seen something presnap, he's evaluated on whether he looked soon enough to the side where the rush was coming from, he's evaluated on whether he had a hot read that he should have gone to instead of just throwing it away. I believe that in that kind of evaluation scheme, detailed, critical evaluation of every aspect of the QB's decision making and physical performance, Josh's grades are good but not yet great. I also believe that he's made steady progress toward great. I think he's improved virtually every season. 2023 was his best so far, and he isn't done yet.

Butting in here, but I think you're both right. It is certainly true that Allen's performances in the playoffs have never been the principal reason for losses. There are plenty of fingers to point in a lot of directions, and Allen may not even have been the #1 suspect. And while I'm not convinced Allen should have thrown for the first down instead targeting Shakir, I am absolutely sure that his mastery of the mental game is what Allen needs. That's what will define his true greatness. And just because he hasn't necessarily crapped the bed in the playoffs, having a more effective QB managing the game will make the regular season easier, make it possible to coast into division championships instead of scrambling to get there, make him tougher to game plan for, etc. etc. etc. I have no doubt Allen needs to get better.

Thanks for this. I don't disagree much - you raise some really good points. I don't think Josh being the ultimate tractor carrying his team, which he is, makes Josh a good QB. Michael Vick carried his team, too. What I said about Josh, and have said for a long time, is that his number one job is to execute the offense at a very high level, and although he improved a lot at it last season, he still isn't elite. I've said something like this before. Maybe you've got 40 offensive plays in the game, and the QB's job on 30-32 of them is to execute the play as designed, on schedule, making the right decisions and quality throws on 100% of them. Mahomes does that. Burrow does that. Brady did that. On the other 8 or 10 plays, the QB has to bail his team out, go off script and make something happen. Allen may be the best in the league at that, and only Mahomes compares with him. And in that category that Burrow falls down. He's more like Brock Purdy or Tua on steroids - he's superb at all the throws that he can make on script, but if the on-script play isn't there, things tend to fall apart with him. Josh needs to be better on those on-script plays.

Hah! You can take the boy out of Connecticut, but you can't take UConn out of the boy! Who goes on a 30-0 run in the Elite Eight? I often analogize to basketball, and I think football is much more of a coaching game than hoops. As the number of players goes up, the complexity goes up, and the importance of individuals goes down. I feel like I'm starting to see Brady's vision, which is Diggs, Samuel, Shakir, Cook, and Kincaid running slants, outs, crossers, deep crossers, corner routes all day long, and Josh finding and hitting the guy who has the mismatch or who gets leverage. They'll get deep, too. I think it's going to be fun. I don't think it's necessary to add a #2, because all he will do is take one of those guys off the field. And I'm not precluding a rookie receiver who can be the guy you're talking about, but I think having signed Samuel takes the pressure of Beane on day one of the draft. And that rookie is not John Brown; he's a guy with good speed but who has brains and can run the routes that the other guys will be running. .

I have often made this argument- that a particular guy will make the whole offense - or defense - better and I get it. I made it last year with Kincaid. Samuel may very well be the guy this year. I think football is more about coachimg than talent. You need a few a few studs for sure, but then it's about having good players and using them the right way. The more I've thought about it, the more important I think the Samuel a question is. I think Brady told McBeane that Samuel I what he needs.