Shaw66

Fluid athletes can be lousy route runners. They can round off their cuts, for example. Most good route runners are not described as smooth. His route running happens to be smooth. Great. He's pretty to watch. Smoothness is descriptive of how he looks, not a physical behavior that is essential to athleticism, like quickness, speed, vertical leap, agility, etc., etc. All it says is he's a pleasure to watch, because we find smoothness in motion attractive. We like gliding. We like how figure skaters flow through their routines. Smoothness is pretty. It is a characteristic of some good football players, but isn't a characteristic to being a good football players. If smoothness were so important, the combine would test for it.

Here's what those links say: The first says this: Smooth, efficient route-runner on routes that allow him to pick up speed and stride into space. The second says this: Kincaid is smooth as a route runner, gliding in and out of route breaks before hitting his second gear in an instant after the ball hits his hands. The third says this: Kincaid is explosive in his release and is a smooth/fluid route runner. The fourth says this: Smooth, nuanced route runner So, notice in every one of these quotes, "smooth" is an adjective that either is superfluous because there is another adjective or describes how he looks. Read each one leaving out the word smooth and you get the same information about The first: smooth is how he looks. Leave it out, and it says he is an efficient route runner, which is what matters. The second: Smooth describes how he looks, gliding and out of breaks. Leave it out, and it say he hits his second gear an instant after the ball hits, which is what matters. The third, smooth and fluid describe how he looks. Leave it out and what it says is that he's explosive in his release, which is what matters. The fourth, smooth again is how he looks. Leaved it out and it says he's a nuanced route runner, which is what matters. I'm telling you, smooth is just a word that describes how he looks. There is no smoothness index, no smoothness stat. Some of the best receivers are smooth, some of the worst receivers are smooth. The fact that he's smooth doesn't make him good.

Maybe. But what I'm reacting to is that many, many posters here who are excited about Kincaid say they're excited because he's smooth. As I said, what matters are things you mentioned. Hands, speed, intelligence, route running. There are plenty of excellent receivers who have those things whom I wouldn't describe as smooth. Like Deebo Samuel. I wouldn't describe him as smooth, and it doesn't matter all. George Kittle isn't smooth. I just don't see how being smooth is what's going to make Kincaid a success. I think a receiver who is smooth is fun to watch; there's some kind of elegance to the efficiency of his movement. But as I suggested, Shakir is smooth, but it isn't getting him into the starting lineup. You're right about this. On those replays, he's more fluid than Davis would have been, and clearly a different animal from any tight end on the roster.

I don't agree about Evans. "Smooth" suggests that the guy makes good cuts effortlessly; Evans wasn't good at making cuts. Woods is interesting. He was smooth. His route running and Kincaid's are similar in that sense. I like it. But again, I don't know that smooth made Woods effective. My point is that if you tell me a guy has good hands or bad hands, then I can tell whether he's likely to be a good receiver or not. If you tell me that he runs routes well or runs them poorly, then I can tell whether he's likely to be good or not. I don't know what to think you tell me he's smooth. Yeah, Robert Woods was smooth, but is that what made him a good #2? I don't think so.

Well, first, unless someone on the training staff has told him it isn't serious, this is exactly the kind of comment he always makes. All he said is, "I don't know. We'll see. He always errs on the side of saying he doesn't know. Second, the oline didn't look bad against the Steelers. There was some concern about how the tackles played, although most of the commentary after film review was that the tackles weren't as bad as people thought. The guards played very well, including McGovern's backup. So, sure, any injury to any starter is concerning. But everything suggests that this injury isn't serious, and that the available backups are good players. Suggesting that this injury, based on this information is "very concerning" doesn't make sense.

I don't know whether analysts have used or not. I want to know how you measure smooth, and how relevant it is to being a good receiver. So far, the examples people have named are all Hall of Famers (except Frank Lewis), and it doesn't seem reasonable, at all, at this point in Kincaid's career to say that he has the same thing Rice, Marvin Harrison, Kelce, and James Lofton had. As I mentioned, I think Shakir is smooth. If I'm right about that, then smooth doesn't correlate with greatness, so why should I care that Kincaid's smooth? I've been on this and the Bills' message board for close to 20 years, and I don't recall people saying about anyone else that the reason he's good is because he's smooth. But plenty of people are saying it about Kincaid. If the guy has good hands, runs good routes, and understands the offense, does it matter if he's smooth or whatever the opposite of smooth is (herky-jerky)?

Never saw a lot of Lewis, but Lofton definitely. So far, all of the comparisons are to Hall of Famers, which means we're dreaming or the Bills have someone really special.

Who's smooth? So far we have Jerry Rice and Marvin Harrison. Maybe one or both of those guys the Bengals have? I mean, smooth seems to describe the way the guy looks, but it seems to me that I don't care whether he looks smooth or not. I care about is catches per target, his yards per catch, etc. I mean, if I think about, I might call Shakir smooth, but that doesn't mean I want a receiver room full of Shakirs.

Thanks. That's a good commentary on the idea. I understand what you say about how Kelce seems to find the holes in the zones smoothly, naturally, as though he's just running and then he's open. And I see that in Kincaid. These videos, he's doing just that - runing down the field and he's open. Effortless. And, probably because he's younger and hasn't bulked up yet, I think he runs better than Kelce. He has some quickness about him - not Beasley quickness, but quicker cuts than Kelce makes. Still fluid. I've done a good job all summer not getting sucked into the idea that Kincaid is some kind of savior, and I'm not starting now. I'd like nothing better than to have 10 or 15 teams kicking themselves in December because they passed on Kincaid, because if he's that good, the Bills offense will be great. But for now, I'm content to wait and see. I won't mind if a bunch of posters are saying "I told you so" in a couple of months.

Good one. So we're saying he's Jerry Rice or Marvin Harrison? Good deal!

By the way, since when did "smooth" become a major positive attribute for a receiver? I don't recall anyone calling any great receiver "smooth." Maybe Jerry Rice was smooth, but since then, who's smooth? Diggs? Debo Samuel? Kelce?

Two catches. It is amazing. They look the same. Looks like if he gets free release off the line, he's tough to guard. I wonder how he looks when he gets jammed.

Looks like three views of one catch, but it does look nice.

Not me. Kyle Allen is a guy who can be Josh's backup for five years or more. Lance will be one or two and done. He's inexperienced and inconsistent. Give me the guy who projects as a long-term backup.

Happened to watch him on NFL Network yesterday. I wouldn't touch him. First, his hometown announcers said that as long as he stays on script, he's very good. Once he needs to create, he's a real problem. Second, he has no touch. Every throw is a rocket. Pretty accurate, but on long balls he's still throwing it on a line, and his receivers have little chance to make plays on the ball. Still, on the last two possessions against the Broncos, he had an impressive TD drive to get them close, then another nice drive for the winning field goal. Bills don't need a project.

Four home games, at Cinci, and London. Big year.

I'll be there. I'm playing linebacker.

I agree with all of this. The point is that there are things that Josh should be doing that he didn't do for the past couple of years. There are a variety of reasons why, I'm sure, but I'm not worried about the past. It's up to Dorsey to get Josh's game under control, to give him the plays he can succeed with, and to get Josh to adjust his attitude to stay in the pocket and take the easy passes.

It's quite likely that I remember what life was like before you were alive. Every player on the team has a job to do. Like everyone else, Josh's job is to be the best version of himself. Josh's best version of himself is the greatest quarterback of all time. He isn't there yet. He isn't even the best quarterback of this time. Josh has work to do. It's his job.

Oh, yeah, there are great QBs who never won one. What I'm saying is that QBs who are great football players but who aren't great QBs generally don't. Josh Allen may be the best player in the entire league right now. He's an unbelievable talent. But Aaron Rodgers and Patrick Mahomes are great quarterbacks, and they've won Super Bowls. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, too. Josh has all the tools to be a great QB. He has to learn the game and develop the discipline that the great ones have. That's beside the point. Please stay on the narrative: The offensive line is terrible and it's Beane's fault.

I see it as a problem. Great quarterbacks win Super Bowls. Great players who play quarterback tend not to. Michael Vick is perhaps the best example. Cam Newton is another. When John Elway was a great player, he didn't win Super Bowls. When he learned to play quarterback, he did.

I'll say what I've said before, and get flamed for it. I think Allen is the problem. Yes, Allen may be the best weapon in the NFL, but if he is, it's because he runs around back there and sometimes takes off for big gains. Allen is not the best quarterback in the NFL. If he were the best quarterback in the NFL, I'd agree, he needs great protection. But if the Bills want to take advantage of his running, they need lineman who can block downfield, and that's what they have. The problem with the Bills is not that they can't protect Allen. The problem is that Allen doesn't do what great quarterbacks do, which is to release the ball quickly and accurately to the receiver who is open. That's what good QBs do. They have high completion percentages because they take and make the easy throws. Allen is not patient. He isn't willing to give up on a play and take the easy throw. He wants the chunk play every play. Good quarterbacks take the chunk play when it's there and take the easy throw when it isn't. Either his coaches are failing him, or he's failing himself. His future, if it's bright, is as a pocket passer, and he's wasting his precious time on the field by trying to hit home runs every play. The best quarterbacks take what's easy.

I agree. I guess it's the hole that makes this different. Look at Torrence and Bates. If Torrence had talent but didn't know what he was doing, they'd just play Bates there until Torrence developed. The problem at middle linebacker is that they don't have anyone in the position whose at least passable, or at least it seems that way. Under those circumstances, it seems to me you put the most talented guy out there and work with him. Maybe McDermott thinks Dodson isn't as bad as people here do. Maybe he thinks Dodson is Bates, and he can hold the fort until someone more talented (Bernard or Williams) raises his game. Actually, I doubt that, because his comment about being "concerned" didn't sound like the sort of thing he'd say if he had to play Bates at guard. He wouldn't say he was concerned.

Well, I just logged in to see if there was some news out of practice that Williams was taking reps in the middle. I found no news, but at least there was some speculation on the subject. Alpha, I gotta say I don't completely agree, because I think McD knows more about this than we do. At least in general. I've watched a lot of kids go from high school sports to college sports and a lot go from college to the pros, and there is one comment that is repeated regularly: It's a big jump. It's not the same game, and the talent and knowledge levels of the veterans is way above that of the rookies coming in. I think coaches will tell you that they see it all the time - the rookies on the team simply can't compete with the veterans on the team. Many of the rookies actually take a year or two before they can compete, and two or more years before they can hold their own. It's just in the nature of sports. And what goes along with that is what McDermott always says about his players - it's a competition, and the best player gets the playing time. The best player is not the player with the most potential; it's the player who plays the best. A couple of weeks ago I was arguing with people daily about why Elam isn't getting more playing time. One of the arguments was that he needs the experience on the field to get better. He's the most talented, so the Bills should let him grow into the position by playing him. That is not how McDermott does it, and I think McDermott is right. Among other reasons, he's right because the players on the team know who the best players are, and they want the best players on the field. They don't want to spill their guts every Sunday playing beside a guy who has potential. They want the best players out there. Every second string player on a team wants playing time so that he can grow and develop and prove himself, but the coach can't run the team that way. As for Williams, there are some arguments to be made to the contrary, but even then, I think we have to defer to the coaches. You and others make this argument they drafted him to play the middle and then declared at the start of camp that he would begin his career exclusively on the outside. Well, that declaration was made after they saw him in rookie camp and OTAs. I think they saw him and realized he just isn't ready yet. What did they see? I don't know, but it probably was that he didn't see the field nearly well enough, that he had trouble learning all of the new concepts they were throwing at him. Whatever, I'm pretty sure that they decided that he just needed time to grow. I trust that judgment. Now, things are a little different. I haven't seen the games, but the reports have been that he's held up pretty well when he's gotten time on the field. The game hasn't been too big or too fast for him. So, there's that. In the middle, on the other hand, no one has stepped up and clearly won the job. Dodson hasn't done it. Bernard had his rookie season to get used to the size and speed of the game, but before he got injured he wasn't opening eyes and showing people that he was realizing the potential Beane and McDermott had seen in him. And there are football games to be played. For me, the problem is not who's going to play middle linebacker in two weeks against the Jets. I want to know who's going to play middle linebacker in December. From what I've heard, only Williams has shown the kind of talent the Bills need at the position. In this situation, I think the need at the position may call for a different approach than usual. I would, as you suggest, start teaching him the job now and get him on the field in the middle in the next two preseason games. If it means having Milano or Hyde call the defense, fine. Just get him experience and force feed his growth. In fact, if it's necessary, put Milano in the middle and leave Williams outside. One way or the other, it's hard to ignore his talent when the other guys are struggling as much as they are.

I have the same reaction, but I think it's good film-watching technique. I think that's how a lot of the pros watch film, because that's how you catch all the detail in what's going on. He is a bit repetitive, but reps are what it's all about. For example, he needs the reps to point out the hand communication between Torrence and Brown. I never knew that's what they do, but it's critical to handling the rush. Each lineman needs to be looking at his man, but also needs to know where his teammate is so that they can hand off rushers and move on to the next guy. While that's going on, there's also footwork that is critical, as well as balance, and use of the hands. Turner likes showing off all the jargon he's learned, but jargon is what's used in any profession. So, yeah, it's a little repetitive, but it's by far the best detailed film study available to Bills fans anywhere.