Shaw66

The Bills studied Elam and concluded that he could learn to play the defense the Bills wanted him to play. That judgment has turned out, so far, to be wrong. Makes plenty of sense. That's exactly what McDermott did with his very first pick: Tre White. That time the judgment was correct. Basham and Epenesa weren't bad picks. They're good NFL players and will play many years in the league. They may not be as good as the Bills hoped they would be, but they are far from busts. The Bills may be about to give up on Epenesa, because he doesn't fit their mold, but they aren't done with Basham. It's all in the nature of the draft. I haven't seen the play, but I've seen him catch Josh's lasers before. And if we're going to measure Davis against "top wide receivers," he will always come up short. He is NOT a top wide receiver and never will be. He's a #2, and #2s are not consistently top playmakers. The only exceptions are the guys who are really #1s and are #2 only because they're still on their rookie contracts with a team that already has a #1. That's nice if you can do it, but it's not a sustainable model. Beane wants a quality #2 for the long term, and that still could be Davis.

Great stuff, Gunner. Just fabulous. I quoted it just so I can respond to several points. I simply didn't bother to figure out how I could watch the preseason games until yesterday, when I got the game first on my phone, then on my laptop. Never bothered to get it all the way up onto the television. I didn't listen, just watched. I don't know the players numbers (at one point watching I replay I actually asked myself who #14 was!), so I got a holistic view of the game and the team. My reaction was "this is a good team." I missed the opening drive, so I wasn't even reacting to the starters on offense. I was reacting to the look of the team, how they executed, how they managed the game, third downs, etc. I could see plays that were missed, but then I noticed that missed plays are always part of the game. Not every drive ends in a touchdown (except once on an absolutely glorious night in Orchard Park), and not every defensive drive ends with a takeaway or a three and out. Watching it all, what I saw was a good team. I'm ready for the season. One thing that I was struck by was the Bills' tackling. It was crisp and sure. Someone was always attacking the ball carrier. And I noticed that a lot of the time it was Neal. First time, I thought, "good for you." Second time, I thought, "nice." Third time was, "hmm, this guy has to be on the team." His active, attacking open-field pursuit and tackling is superior. So, I agree about Neal. I didn't see the starters, but I agree about rhythm. This was a team playing football the way the team wants to play football. In the game there are lots of ups and downs, but the team was a unit taking the ups and downs in stride and dictating the overall flow of the game. (I didn't see the end; apparently, there was some classic late-game nail biting, so I'm sure some will say the Bills still have work to do, and I won't argue.) Happy to hear about Benford. Frankly, what you describe is what I thought I was seeing last season. He's a very good defensive back. If Elam turns out to be depth, well that's too bad when we're evaluating hits and misses in the draft, but there's no reason not to celebrate the Benford hit as much as we may despair over the Elam miss. The Harris runs I saw were excellent. Better than I imagined. Excited to know he's the guy who can spell. Cook. I s till think Murray, too, will have an important role. And you didn't mention Evans, who really showed me skills on multiple plays. By late last season I was convinced that Hamlin can't be an answer at safety. He does everything as well as he possible can, but that's just not quite good enough. Disappointed about Epenesa, but he's been a pretty consistent story, always not quite what he needs to be. Shorter, on the other hand, is a rookie. Sure, he may have blown a play on special teams, but just like the Bills didn't give up on Epenesa or Neal when they made rookie mistakes, the Bills will give up on Shorter now, at least I don't think so. The Bills are about continuous improvement, and they are going to work with Shorter and trust that he will improve. (And, by the way, that's what's disappointing about Elam. The Bills aren't likely to give up on him yet, but he's supposed to be learning lessons and improving (like Neal), and that doesn't seem to be happening.) You're right, Davis is a lock. I've been saying in other threads that part of the problem is that the Bills offense has to be run in a way that makes the Bills less dependent on him. He's just a weapon on the offense, not a go-to guy. Just like Cook and Knox and several others. They're weapons, not go-to. Diggs is the go-to guy, and maybe Kincaid will become one. But reading you analysis and remembering what was said about Sherfield's history, is Sherfield the #2, with some combination of Kincaid and Harty and Shakir in the slot? Thanks again for your analysis. It's top-notch.

I'm responding to you and Balln. 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. Good #2s have decent speed, and are reliable ball catchers when they're open. They get open by executing their routes within the scheme; sometimes the defender makes a mistake, and sometimes the route design stresses the defense in a way that allows the #2 to get open. A #2 should be targeted only when that happens. They are not good at getting separation. The only #2s who separate well are #1s on their rookie contracts, by and large. I don't mind when Josh throws to a covered Diggs, because Diggs is a true #1. I do mind when Josh throws to a covered Davis, because that's a low-percentage throw. A three-yard dump off is a better decision than a 16-yard throw to a covered Davis. Throwing to Davis, or to any other covered #2, is a low percentage throw that is bad for the offense. If you want Davis's catch percentage to go up, tell Josh to stop throwing to him when he's covered. And when he does that, guess what will happen: Josh's completion percentage will go up. That three-yard dump off is a much better play for the team, and is much more likely to keep a drive alive, than a low percentage 16-yard throw to Davis when he's covered. I think you misunderstand what a typical #2 receiver is in the NFL.

Exactly. I haven't studied the stats, but I think last season Josh got greedy and threw downfield to Davis a lot because he was a big target, even though Davis wasn't really open. Find the open man and throw it to him.

Personally, I think this is mostly on the QB. You know what they say about great #1s? They say "he's open when he's covered." In other words, the QB can throw it to him when he's covered, because he's really special fighting for the ball. The same thing is rarely said about #2 receivers. If a #2 receiver is open when he's covered, he becomes someone's #1. A lot of Davis's targets are ball that are contested catches. The quarterback shouldn't be throwing the ball to him, because as a #2 almost by definition is not open when he's covered. The QB's job is to find the #1, and if he can't find the #1, he has to find the guy who is open. Throwing contested catches to anyone but your #1 is a mistake. With well designed modern passing routes, there's almost always an open receiver somewhere. Find him and throw it to him.

Thanks, but no I wasn't confusing the two. But you make a good point about smoothness facilitates explosiveness. Not sure I'd put Allen on the list. I wouldn't call him smooth. But Miller for sure. Different sport, but Ray Allen was smooth. Thanks. This discussion was interesting.

Here's a paper about how people are must now beginning to study smoothness. They say sports trainers recognize it, and it correlates with performance, but they don't really understand it. It is the loose hips, fluid motion characteristics you guys described. They don't know how to measure it, but people are working on trying understand it. https://sportsmedicine-open.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40798-019-0215-y Thanks for getting me started.

This is really good, thanks. That's what I wanted to know. That's a great explanation of what people mean by the. Obviously an important package of little physical skills. Thanks.

Ooh, that's good. Thanks. That's am actual physical characteristic. I'm sure the scouts consider that. I appreciate that I got an actual explanation. That's what I wanted.

I don't have a problem. I just asked what it means and why it's relevant to a discussion of his talents. I don't think it's relevant, so I asked people. And it turns out no one really has been able to tell me. I said in a post, and I don't think anyone responded: If smoothness is really relevant to being a good player, why hasn't anyone come up with a way to measure smoothness? They don't test for smoothness at the combine. PFF grades players on all different kinds of things. Football Outsiders, too. Nobody measures smoothness. Why not? Because it can't be measured? I don't think so. They don't measure it because smoothness is not something it is important have, at least that's what I think. People are suggesting that smoothness has something to do with route running, but I've said there are plenty of good route runners who aren't smooth. One thing I can think about smoothness is that it may lull the defense into a false sense of security, because guys who are smooth don't look like their running hard, don't look like they're cutting sharply. Every looks easy for them, so they don't look like they're trying. Rice was like that. But it didn't take long for the rest of the league to figure out that regardless of how he looked doing it, you had work you tail off to try to cover him. So, I don't know that smoothness, if it's an asset on the field at all, lasts very long as an asset. After you get hypnotized once or twice by his smoothness, you wake up. As I said a few times now. I watch Shakir and think he's smooth. That's always been my impression of him. It doesn't make Shakier a starter. Jerry Rice was incredibly smooth. He flowed all over the field. I think that only made him more enjoyable to watch. I'm pretty sure smooth just describes how someone looks doing whatever he's doing. I don't about Chandler, but definitely Alworth. I don't think so. I think it's interesting that people have named a half dozen great receivers who were smooth. Almost none of them are playing today. OBJ, no. Hopkins, no. Maybe one or both guys at Cinci. Tyreek Hill, no. They're not smooth. I really think smooth is about how he looks when he's doing job. It's not about how well he does his job.

Sorry for your loss, and his family's loss. Great photo. Captures what you describe. Kid next door to us became a lifelong Bills fan for the same reason. It was inevitable; he grew up next door to my kids.

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.