Shaw66
-
Posts
8,974 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
3 hours ago, MasterStrategist said:
I think we're missing 2 legit outside WRs, 1 who is well rounded and the 2nd who can at least be a threat deep. I just don't see Shakir being successful outside the slot, and there seems to be a plethora of options there now.
We will see how this draft shakes out but I still think Khalil is a solid complementary weapon (like a #4 guy). I'm hoping Beane doesn't bank on Shakir/Samuel outside, rather that he focuses on drafting two early WRs.
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.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, SoMAn said:
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.
-
1 hour ago, Warriorspikes51 said:
Using those picks to get a player who can be a top 5 WR with Allen and another potentially elite WR is IMO well worth it
The position is by far in desperate need of that talent levelI 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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, SoonerBillsFan said:
Agreed. That is why I am on the phone with the Vikings. We give them 28 and the 2nd we picked up to get Jefferson. And I remind them THREE #1 picks helps them a lot more than 2, in order to move up and grab a QB.
I'm not sure it's so far-fetched.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ddaryl said:
if we do this we take on ($41,944,499) in dead capOoh. 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.
36 minutes ago, SoonerBillsFan said:I think fans really need to lessen expectations on a trade up. We aren't getting into the top 10 and nor should we give up the draft capital to do it. So let mark the top 3 WR's off the list.
Beane really needs to be working OT with all the data, scouting etc. He can to grab a WR that has a good shot of being a stud somewhere in the teens,as that is about as high as we can, and should, move.
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.
-
2
-
-
18 minutes ago, Virgil said:
It's crazy to think about how well Beane positioned himself to make both of those picks. We had a ton of draft capital
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.
-
3
-
3
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:9 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:
The issue is that you put Burrow in a different tier from him saying he's a better QB and I just think that's patently false.
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.
-
8 minutes ago, ChronicAndKnuckles said:
Herbert doesn’t have the coaching LJ has.
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.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:
Shaw... I understand you think I missed your point. I think you missed mine and we're just talking around each other.
You think the offense is predicated strictly on the ball being spread around to the 4 or 5 offensive weapons on the field on pass plays.
I think any OC that has a weapon like Josh or Lamar at QB would be a complete idiot to not coach them up in some way on when they should use their legs on passing plays.
You think McDermott and his OC by extension just grit their teeth and allow Allen to use his natural instincts to run on passing plays at the times he needs to.
I think McDermott is smart enough (in fact, "buttoned up" might be the right term here) to understand it would be incredibly foolish to not try to coach Josh up on the times he should take off, since it's part of his natural ability, anyway.
We disagree. That's plain to see. I really think you're being too old school in your mentality of pigeonholing the QB position--especially the modern QB--to just passing is a bit naive.
ummm... yes.... how else would anyone else define these things?
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.
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:
Then how do you explain that the guy McDermott fired at OC had Josh running via designed runs and scrambles 4.2 times per game while the guy he hired as Interim OC and then retained permanently in that position had Josh running 9.7 times a game?
Brady doesn't sound like he had the offense very "buttoned up," at least based on your definition.
Also, I don't think 31 other coaches say that, either. Lamar falls into a similar bucket as Allen. Maybe Hurts, to a lesser extent.
I'm a little mystified that you think every QB needs to be judged and evaluated as QBs by the same set of standards.
A good coach knows the talent he has at specific positions and uses it. However buttoned up McDermott might be, he understands the stallion he has at QB and chose the OC that had him running almost 10 times a game.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:
Shaw, all of this neglects to consider the fact that his off-script plays might be part of the script in the first place if you can acknowledge that going beyond read #1 is still part of the script.
Does anyone really think that his coaches are stressing the point to him that he needs to always get to his 3rd or 4th read? His coaches have obviously understood his athleticism throughout his whole career and have incorporated running as part of the progressions, so to speak.
You really think there's never been a point where his OC has said "OK Josh, if it's man coverage and your 1st read is covered and it's a 2 high shell, RUN!!!!"?
I think 2023 was evidence itself that Josh scrambling has been part of the coaching. Look at his rushes for the first half of 2023 with Dorsey vs the 2nd half with Brady. Heck, just look at the "low positive" attitude Dorsey was clearly coaching into him. Just note the fact that during the time Dorsey was coaching in 2023, Allen ran less than 5 times per game. When Brady took over, that number doubled and he ran almost 10 times a game.
As for all the "in-structure" stuff, Josh is actually pretty good and getting better. When Josh does pass the ball in under 3 seconds he has the 2nd fastest release of any QB in the NFL. When he does get the ball out in under 2 1/2 seconds (which is 47 percent of his passes), he completes 78% of his passes. That's #1 in the NFL.
And Josh had the lowest turnover worthy play percentage of his entire career at 3%. He was just really unlucky.
(EDIT: All the stats above are courtesy of Joe Marino in his QB roster evaluation he did a month or so ago. He's said in the past he pays for subscriptions to various sites like PFF for thier Advanced metrics, so that's probably what they're from)
Saying Josh can improve is fine because every NFL player can improve, Including Joe Burrow and Patrick Mahomes. Positing that Josh has more ground to make up as a QB than especially Burrow is, I think, silly.
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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, YattaOkasan said:
Agree on importance of coaching being directly correlated with number of players. But would also posit that coaching importance is also directly correlated with number of stoppages in the sport. Football has a lot which allows lots of opportunity for direction. If you can give better direction you will have an advantage.
Excellent point. And coach can talk to the QB between plays.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, hondo in seattle said:
Andy Reid coached for twenty years before reaching the Super Bowl. The book on him during that stretch was that he was a good regular-season coach but didn't have what it takes to succeed in the playoffs. Now he practically owns the Lombardi.
Reid didn't suddenly become a better coach. He's the same coach he was when he supposedly wasn't good enough in the playoffs. Making a playoff off run culminating in a Super Bowl win is hard and the stars need to align: good coaching staff, good roster, good health heading into the playoffs, maybe some luck with calls and bounces...
Allen will be the guy who can't win big games until he does. It's not his fault and it's not factual. It's just how sports commentary works.
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.
59 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:Why do people try and complicate things.
Because success in football is complicated.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Gregg said:
I agree with you, but I was just pointing out that Allen is aggressive out there and will take chances. Unfortunately, that will lead to turnovers sometimes. I would be shocked if Allen had a year where he has less than 10 INT's.
I won't be shocked. It's coming.
-
45 minutes ago, Gregg said:
Given his style of play Allen will always have his share of turnovers. He is probably good for around 15 INT's a year. His style is a lot like Favre. He has a gunslinger mentality who will take chances. That is a big reason why he makes so many great plays but the downside to that is we will have to live with his turnovers from time to time. But the good far outweighs the bad.
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.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:
Here's the problem with on-script plays for a QB in the NFL:
The other 10 players on offense need to do their job and be on the same page as Allen.
So was it Allen or Gabe more to blame for multiple incompletenes along with a few interceptions on option routes that happened during the season? Was it Allen or Dawkins more to blame for the incomplete pass to Shakir at the end of the drive in the KC game?
Multiple examples of this.
Also, I disagree on your assessment of Mahomes. Mahomes is just as scattershot as Allen is, if not moreso, at executing plays as designed and on schedule.
I think your assessment of Allen lacks the nuanced focus of what's actually happening on the OL.
Which statement here do you think is more true:
Josh Allen has let down his OL throughout his career by getting unnecessarily sacked and pressured when he could have gotten the ball to the WR as determined by the playcall.
OR
Josh Allen has made his OLs look better throughout his career by avoiding pressure, sacks, and making incredible plays only he and maybe a couple other guys can make.
??????????????
Based on your argument, I would assume you believe statement 1 is the more true statement.
I'm not a film buff, but I listen to and read a lot of them. Based on your criteria of 75% (30-32 out of 40), I think Josh is actually already pretty Elite even in the category you don't think he is.
Frankly, I also don't think that when your QB rips off an unscripted 50+ yard TD run in a playoff game that it's an indication of anything other than greatness.
How about his supporting cast and coaching?
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.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, oldmanfan said:
I would suggest that if Josh had taken the shorter throw instead of trying to hit Shakir, we could have run more clock and beaten KC. Josh is an immense talent. No one denies that. I’m glad he’s our QB. But his improvement will come not in the physical but the mental part of the game, knowing when to take the shorter option as an example. I expect the more seasons under his belt the more we’ll see that.
QuoteOnce again, that points to something beyond merely Allen as to why we do not advance.
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.
-
7 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:
Shaw I think your explanation in the previous post is fine except for bringing Burrow into the conversation and putting him above Josh.
I think Burrow is the most overrated QB in the NFL. That's not because I don't think he's really good. It's because he's less of a Tractor and more of a Trailer than Mahomes, Josh and Lamar. Burrow has been widely talked about by many (not all, but a significant and loud enough portion of the national sports media) as the 2nd best QB in the NFL when I think he’s more clearly the 4th or 5th. Aside from his injury history and the whole "the best ability is availability" thing, Burrow had arguably the best WR corps I. The NFL the last few years along with a top 10 RB group.
I used to question Mahomes's greatness because he had 2 HOF players as his #1 weapons in Hill and Kelce. I can't question that anymore. I frankly look at Burrow and wonder why the label of greatness was given to him so quickly by so many. I can answer my own question and get to the Super Bowl appearance, but let's be honest, there's a lot of luck involved in winning in the playoffs and getting to the Super Bowl.
Fact is that Burrow and Mahomes both began their careers with at least a couple E.lite weapons in the passing game and were able to grow into being great QBs with that crutch (along with an Offensive HC of course) and are only now backsliding a little into losing those weapons and needing to be the full Tractor. Mahomes is that Dude. I'm honestly skeptical of Burrow being there considering since his National Championship year in College he's always had more than 1 Elite weapon.
And by the way, Burrow has had 2 great seasons total in the NFL. That's it. And he only reached 40 TDs in one of those seasons. And it's not like you can say he was incredible protecting the Football because he had at least 15 turnovers in both of those seasons.
Contrast those 2 with Josh Allen, who has been given the opposite trajectory. A horrible roster and no weapons in year 1. A couple pretty good weapons finally in year 2. It wasn't til year 3 he finally got an Elite weapon in Diggs, but he's never had 2 the way Burrow and Mahomes have for multiple years at the beginning of their careers. Hopefully next year is the year he finally has 2+ of them through some combination of Diggs, Kincaid, Cook, rookie WR, etc. But that would be his 7th year before he finally got what Mahomes and Burrow started their careers with.
Josh Allen is better than Burrow. He's been the ultimate Tractor carrying this team since his rookie year. If the real criticism of Allen with relattin to this Burrow vs Allen argument is #QBwinz then maybe what McDermott really needs to consider is going old school and start using Allen on D as an LB as well as our QB.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Don Otreply said:
I agree that that coaching is very important, as an example, look at the UConn mens basketball team, Hurley has turned that program into a juggernaut. Having a group of the right guys is more important than having one guy who is elite, I believe that Samuel will be good, I also believe he will be even more effective with a quality #2 boundary guy forcing defenses to spread their coverage out over a larger area of the field, jmo.
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. .
-
2
-
-
36 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:
For the most part I agree with what you’re getting at, the flaw with the Bills defense is regardless of who we roster we play the same soft coverage / contain zone defense, that has its well noted flaws.
As to offensive weapons, a more dynamic #2 boundary guy with better hands would make the entire offense more effective, especially with the style of offense the Bills always seem to play, that is the missing piece.
Yes we have a variety of perceived needs at various positions, but we tend to cut this particular corner when it comes to filling out the offense.
We haven’t had nearly as dynamic a WR group since Brown and Beasley were playing well, it’s past time to fill that Brown spot on the roster, we have the slot well filled, again jmo.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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, T master said:
All or most of what you have said was proven last season in the MVP voting, Josh dwarfed every one else in the running when it came to his stats then when he went on a 6 game winning streak from the middle of the season to go from the 11th seed to #2 & the AFC east Champs but he wasn't the MVP .
🙄 Okay we'll go with that ... What else should we expect we are Bills fans after all right ?
Josh may have been the MVP last year, but he came on too late. The voters make up their minds in November and December. It's stupid.
-
2
-
Bills Coverage Stuff that is Making me Grit my Teeth
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
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.