Shaw66

I don't know why people don't get this. Beane has a very clean line that divides what he will say and what he won't say, and Beane is about as frank and clear about how he sees players as any GM or coach I've heard.

I think a lot of fans tend to panic about this stuff. First, as I've said a thousand times, this league is less about talent and more about coaching than people understand. When you get to the right tackle, you're talking about guys who are not among the 20 best tackles in the league, because they're all left tackles. When you get down below the top 20, you're talking about guys whose talent looks pretty much like the talent of the guys around him. It's an ordinary bell curve distribution, and the difference between the 30th and the 40th best tackle in the league is not very great. Same as the difference between the 30th and 40th best receiver. Davis caught a lot of passes for a lot of yards last season, and many fans fail to recognize that his production puts him solidly in that 30th-40th best receiver category. That's a good #2 to have. Second, fans rarely really understand how good or bad a player is. We simply don't have the information or experience to evaluate guys the way the coaches do. When I hear Beane on Brown, what I hear him saying is that they know his development, they've watched his development, and they think he's going to be better. I have to trust that judgment, because I really don't know the first thing about what the Bills expect of their right tackle and how close he is. Third, fans in these conversations fail to recognize that players really do improve. A guy like Brown, especially, with no quality high school experience and third-tier college experience and coaching, coming into a position where even the best college players are unprepared for what the NFL expects, simply is not going to be the player you want when he first steps on the field. If he's a McDermott type, he's working and studying daily, and we haven't seen his full development yet. Fourth, when Beane says our starting middle linebacker is on the roster, he's saying something that's literally true today. He's not saying that guy WILL be the starter; he's saying that if they had to name the roster today, the only guys they have to choose from are the guys who are on the roster. Beane ALWAYS says he's looking to improve the roster at every position, and every player (except Allen) knows that he's always at risk of being replaced. Dion Dawkins knows the Bills could go OT in the first round, and the guy they draft could challenge not only Brown but Dawkins, as well. Davis, too, knows that the Bills could take a receiver in the first, and that receiver could be the eventual replacement for Diggs. If that's who he is, he also could be the immediate replacement at #2. The real point of what Beane says is that although he might take a linebacker or a receiver at #1, they've determined that they don't have a true need at those positions. That's what allows the Bills to go BPA. I don't think what Beane has said to date should be understood that any position on the roster is safe. That said, we've seen and heard him enough not to expect that he won't go pure BPA in the first round. I think they have to be looking for a tackle or a linebacker, and they will move to get one. Possibly a receiver. And, given their history, I won't be surprised to see them take a defensive lineman.

I'm with you on this. Pretty clear that the position was important to the Bills when they moved up to take Edmunds. I believe McDermott sees it this way, too. I don't see how you can have a top-10 defense without the right guy in the middle, in the same way you can't have a top-10 offense without a QB. The only question is whether McDermott and Beane see that guy in this draft. If they do, I expect Beane will go get him. That's always been his style - he isn't afraid to make the bold move to get his guy. Sanders in round one wouldn't surprise me.

One thing that makes the draft so inscrutable to me is balancing value with getting the guy you want. Sanders is projecting at a high- to mid-second round pick. Bills draft at the end of the second round. If Sanders is the 40th best guy in the draft, it just seems like a waste to spend the 27th pick on him. What about the "value" you lose by doing that? There is some guy who is the 27th best guy in the draft, and the difference in that value is significant. Now, maybe the Bills have Sanders at 30, not 40, and if they do, taking him at 27 isn't a problem. But if the Bills have him at 40, do they try to trade down a bit, say to the fifth or seventh pick in the second round, and pick up an extra pick, which they could use? But that's a risk, because someone else might grab Sanders. Last year, I think Beane said they went into the draft with only 25 guys with a first-round grade. Maybe they'll be there again this season. If they have a first-round grade on Sanders, then maybe he's their guy and they'll do whatever, maybe even trade up, to get him. But if they have only 25 first-round grades again this year, and Sanders isn't one of them, what do they do? I posted somewhere else about Sanders. I don't know anything about him except having watched his highlights. I really like his size and hitting. He isn't a classic tackler by any means, but he attacks ball carriers in a way that Edmunds never has. He has the same 40 time as Keuchly. I didn't like his first-step quickness. He's also, I think, relatively new to the linebacker game, having been an edge at Alabama and only having a year at Arkansas. I don't know that he has the talent to play as a rookie, but he looks to me like a guy the Bills would like to have on the field in the middle of the defense. I wouldn't mind just taking him at 27 and not worrying about the value proposition.

Here's my honest take. I've always seen Beane's reasoning on draft night, and I've always gotten excited about the guys he takes. I expect I'll be the same this year. I'll stay excited through September or October. However, I've got to say that my feelings looking back at his drafts are verging toward the angry side, and I could be down right angry if he hasn't landed some real help for the Bills. I want to see some serious contribution from Beane draftees. Rousseau, Epenesa, Elam, Cook, Oliver, Brown, plus the unnamed rookies, some of these guys need to start making plays instead of just taking up space .

Sorry. I can't even spell draft without looking it up. I can name more UConn Husky basketball (men or women) players than I can name players in the draft. On draft nights, I'm counting on you guys to tell me whether to be excited or angry.

Thanks for your comments in this thread. I've jumped around a bit here and learned. I happened to watch a Youtube highlights video of Sanders, and I can see why people think he has promise. I like his size and his mobility, although it's clear from the video that he doesn't play at the speed Edmunds does. As you say, none are the prospect Edmunds was. What I really liked about Sanders is that he attacks ball carriers. He gets downhill and hits people with the intention of taking them off their feet. I don't mean he's a run stopper. I mean when he arrives at the ball carrier in the flat or over the middle, he hits the guy like I always hoped Edmunds would hit the guy. I think he has the size and mobility to play the position the way the Bills played Edmunds. Probably a little better player downhill and a little less range in coverage.

Something like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?

Can someone tell me how to make a Dorsey emoji? My response to every six out of ten posts would be my Dorsey emoji. Then all I'd need is McDermott emoji for the other four.

Thanks. I learn a lot in these discussions. I am, by the way, getting optimistic about the coming season. I have a lot of confidence in McDermott. I'm counting on Beane bringing home a decent crop. Won't really know about that until November.

Thanks, Gunner. You did the homework and took the time to explain the point clearly, with an example. The fundamental point is that consistency is not a statistic that correlates well with talent, at least in pro football. I think it's particularly true with the number guy at multiple positions - #2 corner, #2 tackle - but especially with skill position players, because the #2 receiver or the #2 running back simply is not the focus of the offense week after week, because the #1 guy is focus. That's why he's #1. I understand your earlier point about doing what the Steelers did/do, which is to keep drafting receivers in rounds 3-5, and it makes sense for two reasons. One is that every once in a while a real stud shows up there, so if you're drafting regularly there, once in a while you find a real keeper. The other reason is that you rarely keep your #2 guy for more than a few years. They get too expensive, or you need someone better. In fact, that's exactly how the Bills got Davis. Your point, and I agree, is that you have to keep doing it. Of course, that's the point for every position. You have to keep drafting corners, because your number 2 corner never stays for more than a few years. You have to keep drafting tackles, because either your right tackle isn't good enough or if he is, he becomes too expensive. The Bills actually have been better on the receiver end than the offensive line end. The Bills at least invested draft capital in Diggs, Knox, Davis, and Hodgins over the past few years. They should be drafting twice as many offensive linemen as receivers, and that hasn't happened.

Someone said when Harris signed that they hope he will be what Moss didn't measure up to - the power back with enough mobility to handle the running game in general. I think that's right. McDermott wants to platoon his backs, and as I said, he loves being versatile. I think he wants to platoon Harris and Cook, sort of Motor-heavy and Motor-light. The Bills like to pull their linemen and overload the point of attack, and that's the kind of style that Harris can do damage in. He can move the pile. So I'm expecting to see Cook probably start, but be spelled on every third series or so by Harris. Harris will get goal line duty, and Hines will sub in at various times, maybe particularly as the third down back when Harris is on for his shift. And I agree about Davis having a down year. It was his first season as a full-time starter, and I suspect he learned some lessons. I expect him to have more impact in 23.

I love how you have a little explanation for why your arguments aren't wrong. Like somehow Davis's horrible catch percentage means he's a problem. The catch percentage alone. But Deebo's catch percentage isn't a problem, for some reason. I just proved to you that catch percentage is not a good measure of how good a receiver is, but you reject the proof. You also dismiss that he was 34th in the league in yards receiving, because somehow that stat isn't meaningful for him but it's meaningful for everyone else because Davis isn't "consistent." Sorry, you've failed and you don't even know it.

This new take on the problem is interesting. Thanks to Colorado for coming up with the data. I like your take, that he's on the field a lot because he blocks. And that may help explain why he got so many targets. And, I'll admit, that's where Davis's failings catching the ball become a bit of a problem. I had the same thought about Knox. But if the reason Davis is on the field is to block, then Hopkins and Beckham (1) are not going to like being in that role, and (2) may not be good at it. So, I still come back to Dorsey. What is the running game going to look like? Is a quality blocker necessary (that's why Kumerow brought some value)? If the running game is going to be the feature, then the Bills need Davis on the field, and if that's why he's playing, then his reception totals actually are great. Or, would the Bills be willing to tank the running game, get a stud receiver for a year or two to pair with Diggs? Whatever they do, whichever way they go, it will be up to Dorsey to make it work. Frankly, I think McDermott is all about being balanced, being multiple, That's why they got Harris - McDermott wants to be a better power running team. And that's why they got Harty - he wants to attack deep. He wants to be able to do everything. And that's why they like Davis, because he's a better blocker than most receivers, and he's a better receiver than most blockers (like Kumerow). All of which says to me that the Bills think Davis is just what they want in the position, and they'll work on his receiving skills.

Yeah, I don't have any major quarrel with this. I'm not going to be surprised to see the Bills get what they can from Davis and then move on. Oh, and by the way, I know you weren't saying Davis should go, but others are. Reading what you said made me think one other thing. There are very few teams that actually keep their #2s around very long. Colts did it for a long time, but it's much of a revolving door for teams. That's because there's a limit to how many players teams can lock up for the long term, and #2 receiver is virtually never a priority, because of needs at more important positions. So, who the next #2 is going to be is a continuing question for GMs. What Beane meant when he said he's fine with Davis (whatever his exact words were) was that #2 receiver is not a problem now.

You know, Beck, there are millions of fans hooked on pro football. Some of them are geeks like the guys at Pro Football Reference, who make all this data available. Some of them are geeks like Football Outsiders, whose work I like, and some of them are geeks like PFF, whose work I don't like. But I will tell you, quickly, that I can't really tell you whose data is useful and whose isn't. What i do know is that data can be used for two different purposes. One is to evaluate players for the purpose of figuring out how to work with them to improve. That's an internal, coaching purpose. The other purpose is to help fans try to figure out what teams are good and what players are good, to fuel discussions and to recognize greatness. The first kind of data, the internal data, isn't particularly useful for the second purpose. Why? Because there is a low correlation of that data to greatness. Catch percentage is one of those internal-use numbers, and it's a number that doesn't correlate with greatness. How do I know that? Because I know that Gabriel Davis and Deebo Samuel and Davante Adams are NOT worse receivers than 150 other guys currently in the league. That's ridiculous. Receptions, yards, and touchdowns correlate with effectiveness, and those are the data that reasonable fans look to to determine the relative value of players. That triangular thing is cool, created by some geek to come up with some way compare receivers. Looks cool, but I'm sure I don't a picture like that to know that Diggs is a better receiver than Knox and Davis.

These are two different things. Some people here are saying Davis is inadequate and the Bills should move on. Beane was responding to thoughts like that. What he was saying was, effectively, that #2 receiver is not a hole in the lineup that he needs to fill. Talking about OBJ and Hopkins is something different. Beane has said often that he always will consider opportunities to make the team better, so of course he actively considers stars like that who might be available. Personally, I don't think either makes sense, because my first impression is that I wouldn't want to add another difficult personality to the receiver room. That concern notwithstanding, I'd certainly be talking to them. Talking about moving on from Davis now just doesn't make sense. This team wants to contend for a Lombardi, and they need a linebacker, a D tackle, an O tackle much more than they need a 200- or 300-yard upgrade at the #2 receiver. And that's the other reason why, although Beane will look at Hopkins and OBJ, he's not likely to pull the trigger. He has more important positions to spend his money on.

So, I had to look at the catch percentage data. I mean, who ever looks at that? But I was curious. Davis is 186th, at 51%. See any other names under 60%? I did. Names like Deebo Samuel, Courtland Sutton, Elijah Moore, Julio Jones, Davante Adams. Maybe it's time for the 49ers to move on from Samuel.

I don't know on what basis you'd make that bet. One of my principle points is that Davis's games under 50 yards are much too small a sample to say that he's inconsistent. The variations in his yardage over one season of games simply isn't sufficient data to establish that he is "inconsistent. Furthermore, as I said, until you know the play calls, the defenses, the game plan, etc., you can't know whether the Inconsistency you see is caused by Davis or other factors. Second, I don't have any reason to believe that consistency in this data is better in the long term. I certainly know I want an inconsistent receiver who gets me 1200 yards over a consistent one who gets me 600. That's a no brainer. If I have two guys, one at 1200 and one at 1000, yes, I'll take the guy I can count on every day, but in between those two extremes, I don't know where the cut off point is. What I do know is that Davis got a lot of yards last season, and that's valuable. You say his inconsistencies led to stalled drives, missed points and some turnovers. I think that's nonsense until you prove it. In the first place, as I said, the Bills were 7-2 in his games under 40 yards. So, I only care about the two games the Bills lost. And in those two games, you'd have to find the plays where he had drops or ran bad patterns that led to those things. Do the research and come back with some actual data and we can talk. You guys seem to be ignorant of the fact - the fact - that the deeper you go into fine tuned data, the less meaningful the data is. When have you ever heard catch percentage cited as the measure of a good receiver? It's a very important piece of data for coaches to start with, but it is only a starting point. The number of times he caught the ball compared to the number of times he was targeted until you back out of Davis's totals - and every other receiver - all of the bad throws and all of the plays where he was double teamed and all of the plays where the corner made a good play on the ball. After you've done that for all receivers, tell me where he stand in catch percentage, and then we'll have a stat that at least we can talk about. You want to talk about problems the Bills have, about things that really need to improve? Talk to me about Dion Dawkins. Talk to me about Spencer Brown. The Bills have two starting wideouts and two starting tackles. The #1 tackle is mediocre at best, and the #2 tackle probably was one of the worst right tackles in the league. Davis wasn't close, nowhere near close to being the worst #2 wideout in the league. Beane says he has no worries about Davis. I'll take his opinion over yours.

As I just said, how do you know it's Davis and not the game plan? Not the defense? Not the situation? When is the last time you saw pass receivers rated as good or bad based on their game consistency? It is not a stat I've seen anywhere. Why? Because consistent receivers are not better than inconsistent receivers. Productive receivers are better than nonproductive receivers, and Davis was 33rd in yards and 15th in touchdowns. And by the way, the games Davis was under 50, the Bills were 7-2. Hard to say that his inconsistency is costing Bills games.

Have you studied the game plans of every game where Davis went under 50 yards for the game? Have you studied the defensive alignments on every play to determine what defenses he faced? Until you've done that, you can't convince me that Davis's inconsistency is based on Davis's limitations, because Davis is not the only person who determines whether Davis is open and whether Allen throws to him. Have you studied Davis's blocking assignments on every play and graded his performance? Until you've done that, I am NOT going to conclude that Davis is a problem because his 800+ receiving yards weren't spread across 15 games as evenly as you would like. The Bills were 7th in the league in passing yards per game, seventh in the league in passer rating, second in the league in passing touchdowns. They were second in the league behind KC in total yards per game and total points per game. KC's second receiver, Smith-Schuster, averaged 58+ yards per game, Davis averaged 55+. Smith-Schuster had seven games below forty yards, three in a row, then two about 80, then three more in a row below forty. You guys get lost in these little data points and attach great meaning to them to support your subjective feelings because you remember some balls Davis dropped. Several years ago there was a debate that went on for weeks about how much better the Bills would be if Tyrod Taylor just threw over the middle more. He was near the bottom of the league in throwing to the middle. It was so much nonsense. If he'd thrown over the middle the average number of times, that would have been less that two times a game more than he was throwing. The stat simply did not translate into something meaningful, and these stats people are pointing to about Davis don't mean much, either. The Bills have a very good passing offense and excellent total offense. Davis is a significant contributor to that offense. To talk about replacing him is silly. You're actually going to burn a first-round pick on a guy you want to be the #2 receiver, instead of an offensive lineman or a linebacker? Really? And don't say they can get a guy in the third. Counting on a third rounder to start and put up 800 yards is a pipe dream.

No, I won't show you the number 2 you want to see, because it isn't worth going to look for it. It's in the nature of random numbers. It just isn't meaningful that he had four under 40 in six games. Chances are that some other number 2 will do it next season. And even if Davis does it again next season, the question then becomes "why is this happening?" It could be happening for any number of reasons. The unusual season is one where every game a receiver is within 10 or 15 yards of his average, every game. That's rarely how random numbers fall. Did you look at the total yards receiving by top-10 combos? Did you see where I said that Davis and Diggs had 200+ more yards on the season than Chase and Higgins? Which would rather have, more yards or fewer yards and more consistency? It's an interesting question, but it isn't immediately obvious that consistency is the right answer.

Well, that's a very nice statement of the point. However, I think there are two things to recognize here: First, there aren't a lot of #2 receivers who have a higher mean. The mean is just the average of the total, and as we've kept saying, his total yards are good for a #2 receiver. Yes, the best #2s are a couple hundred yards ahead, but most #2s are behind Davis and those have a lower mean. Second, without having gone to study the data, I think it's a good bet that most #2s have a large standard deviation like Davis does. Every week there's a different game plan, a different focus of the offense, different defenders, and then a different game. I suspect the number of targets for most #2s varies widely from week to week. Why? Because every game is different, and because if a receiver is getting the same number of targets every week, that means the offense is predictable. Bottom line, I think people's expectations are unreasonable. I just looked back over the past 20 years. Bills had two #2s who had more yards than Davis. Beasley with Brown and Lee Evans with Moulds. In both cases, they weren't a lot higher. Woods never did it. Granted, the teams were bad, but the QBs were good - Allen and Bledsoe. Having a 1000-yard #2 is a luxury, and complaining about the standard deviation or catch % is nitpicking - yes it would be good to improve those things, but none of it raises Davis to the level of being a problem. I will be completely satisfied to see him on the field come September, and I'll expect him to have 1000 yards by the end of the season.

Diggs and Davis had more yards than Chase and Higgins, so what does it really matter? Davis had 9 games under 50 yards. Higgins had 6. Every number 2 has some non-productive days. These splits you guys are relying on are pretty meaningless.

But that's in the nature of stats, some big games some not good at all.