ShakAttack
-
Posts
626 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ShakAttack
-
-
Sorry if this was already posted, but here is a good video. While it does confirm that Coleman struggles with separation on deep routes, you can see him doing very well in creating separation on other routes.
The film of his struggles to separate vertically starts around 6:20.
After that, you will see some impressive route running in which Coleman is successful in separating from DBs.
Enjoy.
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
5
-
-
13 minutes ago, Sweats said:
For anyone denouncing this pick, how are you so sure that he will be a failure and not work out for us?
Just curious as to why people think it's not a good pick.....
Speed?.......yes, he had the slowest 40, however, he had the fastest gauntlet and pass-arounds at the combine by any WR in the past 2 years
What else you got?
Regarding his splits on the “football” drills, you’re absolutely right, and this is why I am willing to excuse his 40 yard dash time.
My biggest issues are two things:
1. Separation. The fact he is not a separator is concerning. Even if he excels at contested catches, I don’t like the idea of Allen throwing into coverage frequently when he is targeting Coleman. You are leaving too much to chance this way, and even though we should be able to expect Coleman to win most of these, how many interceptions could it also lead to? When the reduction of turnovers is something I think we all hope to see from Allen next season.
2. As good as his combine drills were, there is one player that I see that had a better score on (almost) all of them, and that is AD Mitchell. It bothers me quite a bit that we took Coleman over Mitchell. Mitchell is a much more polished receiver and can do the things that Coleman can do plus more. I believe he has a better chance to produce immediately at the NFL level, which is what we needed much more than a “development” player. We just lost our top two receivers. I understand that Coleman actually does add something that this offense was missing, I just think there was a much better option.
I guess I just wanted to see the Bills draft a dynamic receiver that could be targeted at every level of the field, and I am not sure if Coleman can ever be that type of player.That said, I am definitely willing to give him a chance, and like others, I hope I am wrong about him.
I also hope I am wrong about Mitchell.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, SDS said:
Post reaction here.
Poor Josh Allen.
There's mine.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:
The trade everyone is complaining about from tonight 😂
yeah my bad NFL network had posted it as bills getting a 4th. Shoot, I liked it then, and I like it more now. Especially because KC took the receiver I specifically did NOT want Bills to draft.But there was one player that I was dreading more than Worthy and that was Cooper DeJean, who is, unfortunately still in play
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Rochesterfan said:
After the trades - they have 2 2nds, a 3rd, and a 4th - plus a bunch of 5ths - 7ths.
when did the Bills get a 3rd? -
I hate the fact that DeJean seems like SUCH a McDermott guy and the fact that he slipped out of the first round might be too difficult for the Bills to resist, even though it should not even be a consideration with the state of our WR room.
I am going to be on edge until the 2nd round begins. Thankfully we pick first. For now, anyway.
-
If true then I guess Beane was doing some serious smoke screening last time we heard from him
-
6 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:
That's officially over. The window is slammed shut until at least 2026 now and that's if they draft a stud in the late first this year.
I mean we did make the playoffs with John Brown and Cole Beasley as our WR1&2. I realize the defense was better at that time, but that was also 2019 Josh Allen.
Our roster isn’t near complete yet. Why don’t we at least give it a chance and see where this is going first?
We are definitely drafting a WR now, and there is a VERY high chance that WR will be more productive than Diggs was in the 2nd half of last season. He will also be ~10 years younger.
The only thing that bothers me about this deal is that we were willing to get rid of him for $3m less than it would have cost to keep him. I guess we just wanted to get decent compensation for him while we can? I don’t know, but wait till next year and you’re looking at a 4th-5th round pick at best. So there’s that.
-
1
-
-
The elephant in the room for me….. how the hell did this happen in the first place? What is a no trade clause if you can be traded?
-
1
-
-
This thread proves that most of us can be talked into liking just about any signing. Pretty much everyone would have preferred Blackmon before this signing, and some still do, but it is only a matter of time until we are enamored by his 2 SB rings, impressive stat line despite only 28 career starts and the fact that he “would have” been a starter had he been on a different team, he’s cheaper for the Bills (oh and he hasn’t torn an ACL / Achilles yet either) ….. and therefore he’s a better signing than Blackmon. Just wait.
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Motorin' said:
Curbed stomped? That's how you define being within striking distance of winning the game with the final drive?
Well, defensively, I think “curb stomped” would be a fair assessment. And the disturbing thing is, when we look at each of our elimination games since 2020, we find a common denominator: Defense can’t get a stop, can’t get a turnover-
1
-
-
What’s the deal with Rasul? I thought that was already a done deal.
-
2
-
-
Yeah, I don't understand this one at all. It's the punter position. Not exactly highest demand. There had to be a better option than Matt Haack...
-
2 hours ago, Low Positive said:
And to think RB was the most important player on the team just a decade ago.
it was still the most important player for one of the Super Bowl teams last year. But that’s about it. -
5 minutes ago, SCBills said:
Yup. This is why Allen catches criticism for throwing to a guy he knew would be open for the TD pre-snap.
It’s an insane standard to hold him to.
And honestly, it’s probably the biggest indictment of this organization around him if one play could be a microcosm of why we haven’t won it all with him yet.
But it is what it is, and given game flow, it just felt inevitable that we were going to drain the clock and Allen wills us to a go ahead TD with 30 seconds left and KC out of timeouts … until it wasn’t.
Especially when you consider down the stretch of last season, Allen and the offense came up with TDs over and over again at the end of games when needed. That includes games in which Allen struggled during the first 3 quarters. He was insanely clutch last season.
Ironically, one of the only times we failed to score a TD in that scenario was the regular season game against KC, where we instead had to settle for a FG. Granted, that was a go-ahead FG, but it still felt like a TD was necessary in that situation at the time.
-
3 minutes ago, beebe said:
The Chiefs played a lot more man coverage vs the 49ers after Brock Purdy was tearing apart their zone through 1.5 quarters.
The Chiefs-Bills playoff game, Buffalo's halves weren't terribly different. Buffalo had only four drives in each half. So it was a very low possession game. KC's defense got off the field once more in the 2nd half than first half and made the Bills work a little harder on offense, especially on the final drive. Chris Jones usually is at his absolute best when it matters most.
If Buffalo didn't extend the drive on the first possession after facing 3rd-and-17, the halves would have been closer on a per-play basis, not on the actual scoreboard.
Buffalo 1st half:
14 plays, 60 yards
11 plays, 75 yards
5 plays, 15 yards
12 plays, 75 yards
Buffalo 2nd half:
15 plays, 75 yards
3 plays, 5 yards
3 plays, -2 yards
16 plays, 54 yards
That 16 play, 54 yard drive… just looking at that makes me want to cry. It was THE perfect drive for that situation, until we went off script, stopped doing what we were doing to get to that part of the field and got greedy.
I think the part that hurts the most is if we kept chipping away (I.e. throw to Diggs on 2nd and 9) you probably end up around the 10 yard line eventually where the Bills are likely one of the most efficient teams in the NFL at striking from the distance, in large part due to the threat of Allen as a runner.
But we all know this already, so I will stop.
It’s just, I knew that was a perfect drive, but I did not realize until reading the OP that it was a 16 play 54 yard drive. Just wow.
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, FilthyBeast said:
This is just it, regardless what this 53 man roster looks like heading into the start of next season....there's likely going to be key injuries again in terms of both season ending and short term variety. It's just the way things work.
And I don't dispute the fact that this team has been unlucky in that area in recent years, but maybe it's time to look at the training staff as one solution. But to the best of my knowledge they haven't changed anything on that front.
Also regarding the Chiefs, I've pointed this out and agree....but they did lose Joe Thuney for the AFCCG and Superbowl (a big time injury) and obviously that didn't stop them from being the first team in 20 years to repeat as world champs.
Very true, regarding Thuney. At the same time, I have always felt that teams can overcome one major injury, but when it is multiple starters, it becomes insurmountable.
Look at it this way. Yes, they were out Thuney, and Omenihu (who technically is not their starter).
But the Bills in contrast (only naming starters):
Tredavious White
Matt Milano
Christian Benford
Terrell Bernard
Gabe Davis
Rasul Douglas (was playing, but should not have been due to injury. Honestly, we may have been better off with Elam. He has picked off Mahomes once, after all)
Every single one of those guys was extremely valuable to the Bills and were sorely missed vs KC. That includes Gabe Davis, considering Sherfield's abysmal play in that game.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Ya Digg? said:
Hahahahaha I love the hate in here! If the Bills had signed him, there would’ve been 3 pages of complaining about his problems, doesn’t know how to hold the ball for kicks, blah blah blah. He signs with the Chiefs and all of a sudden the Bills didn’t sign this all world punter 🤦♂️
Would there though? I think majority of fans wanted him back last year when Sam Martin was struggling.
-
1
-
-
All punter jokes aside, this actually is a pretty big deal.
The fact that Araiza can flip field position from just about anywhere means good luck getting a "short field" against a great defense next year.
Field position is a huge part of the game...
If anything, hopefully these big punts will lead to big returns here and there...
-
1
-
-
It’s funny how each off-season fans talk about how they can’t wait to get x, y and z back. This was the same thing before last season even started. What makes anyone think that next season we aren’t going to lose a few important starters at some point? Most teams do. Yes, we did have it worse than most these past couple of seasons due to the fact injuries would accumulate at the same position groups making them harder to overcome, but we can’t just assume the starters at the beginning of the year will be the starters at the end of the year, because they won’t.
there is only one Kansas City (aka teams that do not lose critical pieces at critical stages of the season)
-
Funny thing is, this happened to me yesterday too, but when I first clicked on the thread, I thought you were talking about sports cards.
Fellow collectors know that "skunked" is the term used for getting 0 cards in a sports card break.
-
6 hours ago, Shaw66 said:
Thanks for this.
First, maybe I should go back and look at your other thread. I never opened it simply because of the title - I didn't see the point in talking about your or my emotional reaction to two Chiefs games. I like this explanation about your point there.
I think the only difference between you and me is perspective. I think the proper perspective is that the league often has periods where there is a dominant team. The Niners were like that when they had Montana, Young, and Rice. They didn't win every year, but there was a feeling, a little bit, of the inevitably of losing to them when you played them. Then the Cowboys for a few years with Aikman and Smith. And while the Niners and Cowboys were doing that, the Bills were right behind them - the whole AFC felt that same inevitability. But the Bills were still just outside, knocking on the door. Then we had 20 years of the Patriots, a remarkable run, and now the Chiefs are doing it. Unfortunately, when the Bills finally got good and blew past the Pats, there were the Chiefs. What's truly unfortunate is that the team to emerge as the top dog is in the AFC, so there's an unusually big challenge standing the way for the Bills. The Bengals beat the Chiefs because the Bills had beaten up the Chiefs in the 13-second game.
I choose to look at what's happened from the NFL perspective, not the Bills' perspective. From the NFL perspective, the Chiefs are the best team in the league. Period. No one beats them. It's why Mahomes and Kelce kept talking about being the underdogs. From their point of view, they were thinking, "Who are you kidding. We're the best team in the league." And they are.
So, from my perspective, yes, of course, we can ask, "What's wrong with the Bills and how can they fix it?," but 30 other teams in the league are (mostly to a greater extent) asking the same thing. The only difference between the Bills and most of those 30 others is that the Bills are a lot closer to being able to answer that question.
The Bills are in the same position the Manning Colts were in trying to get past the Patriots. The same position the 1950s Dodgers were in facing the Yankees in the World Series every year.
Yes, the Bills have to get better, and yes, we want them to have a period of domination like the Chiefs are having now. That would be great. But it may just be the case that the Chiefs, like the Pats and the Yankees, always will be one step ahead, and the best the best challenger can do is break through one year, win one championship, and be satisfied with that.
Now, people will say I'm a loser and I'm giving the Bills a pass, and I'm satisfied just with making the playoffs. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that Bills are very good - the Bills are date the Chiefs circle on the calendar every year, but that simply is very difficult to improve enough to get over a very high bar: Beating a generationally good team. The Colts kept losing to the Pats in different ways, and the Bills are losing to the Chiefs in different ways.
(In fact, and this is not my point, but it is interesting, that Brady was the GOAT and Peyton, top-five all time, kept losing to him, and now Allen, who himself may end up top-five all time, keeps losing to Mahomes, whom people are starting to compare to Brady.)
So, yeah, I really hate losing in various ugly fashions to the Chiefs, but the reality is the Bills were 13 seconds away from beating them once in the playoffs, and a Josh Allen step away from beating them last month in the playoffs, and there is no other team in the league that has played the Chiefs that tough consistently. And, yeah, there are things that the Bills could have done better to beat the Chiefs, and yeah, the Bills need to get better to achieve their goals. All of that. But that doesn't mean the Bills should change coaches or change GMs. The only reason the Niners haven't lost more to the Chiefs is that they play in the other conference, and the two chances Shanahan had, in the Super Bowl, he lost. Shanahan and McDermott are the only two coaches who have gotten their teams close to beating the Chiefs, and the fact that they haven't won is more a commentary on the Chiefs than on them.
The Bills aren't losers. The Chiefs are winners. McDermott has his team knocking the door. The Bills know it, and the Chiefs know it. The way I look at it, of all the situations I can find my team in, the Bills are in the second best. They aren't hopeless losers, they aren't .500, hoping stick their noses under the playoff tent. They are a team that pretty much everyone who knows football understands to be on the very best teams in the league, with a quarterback who is well on his way to the Hall of Fame. I love being in this situation, and I want - oh, I want it so badly! - for the Bills to be the best in the league. They aren't quite there, but they're knocking on the door. Next year may be the year they blow down the door burst into the hall of champions.
In short, without putting words in your mouth, your perspective is that something is wrong with the Bills and they can't do it better. My perspective is that the Bills are very good and just haven't been able to beat the dominant team of the era. It's just another step for the Bills to become the new dominant team, and 2024 is their next chance to do it.
Thank you for this great post. After reading this, I have a more "positive" take on our Chiefs problem. Well, positive, but with a caveat.
As you stated, the Chiefs are a generationally good team; they are the team that "no one beats".
But here is the difference between the Bills vs. Chiefs (in the playoffs) and other teams that chased dynasties in the past and could never get past them:
The last 2 times we lost to KC, I would have to say the Bills beat themselves more-so than the Chiefs beat the Bills...
As "mighty" as the Chiefs are, the Bills were in a GREAT situation, both times!
Why did we lose both games? Our own coaching in 13 seconds and this year it was our own execution (for example, not throwing to a wide open Diggs even though we had successfully executed a dink and dunk attack that drained 6 minutes off the clock in the 4th quarter. During that particular drive, I was fooled into thinking, "Wow. We actually did learn. We actually do know how to win this game without giving Mahomes another chance!" I think Joe Brady and Mcdermott were on the same page there, but perhaps Allen was not, which goes back to my "if it isn't one thing, it's another" feeling when things go wrong with the Bills).
So, my point is both of those games were completely on US. The Bills beat the Bills. Plain and simple.
Now, typically this would be a (relatively) good thing because is it not better to be the team that beats itself against the very best as opposed to being just another team that gets flat out beat by the very best?
Yeah, I'd say so. But in our case, we have shown, time and time again, in different situations, but especially this one, that we are NOT learning from our mistakes as much as we should.
First thing that comes to mind is the Bills defending Hail Marys. After "Hail Murray" went down, I think we all expected that to be something that couldn't possibly happen again, and to be fair, it hasn't happened again, but...
The very next week Herbert completed a Hail Mary against us. Fortunately, it did not impact the outcome. And this past year vs. Tampa, we lucked out with Godwin's back being turned. It just seems like this team repeats the same mistakes more often than a great team should.
And that where my positivity turns to pessimism and it is what I meant by "I'll believe it when I see it". Which, I don't believe is the same thing as saying "they can't do it better", which is how you had interpreted it. I would say my perspective is more like, "Yes, we are fully capable of getting past KC, but until we PROVE that we can get out of our own way in game-winning moments, I am not going to expect it".
I also agree with you 100% about Mcdermott. I think coaching far too often gets blame for issues that they shouldn't. And a lot of the time our blame is misplaced because a lot of situations/plays/decisions are more complicated than we could possibly know.
-
That this year’s playoff loss was worse than 13 seconds because it was a better opportunity to make the Super Bowl.
and what also made it worse is after 13 seconds we were itching to get another shot at KC in the playoffs and redeem ourselves (not shoot ourselves in the foot again).
We get that chance - at home - only 2 years later, with the Bengals out of the playoffs, and we shoot ourselves in the foot, again… after all of that.
This team does not learn.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:
Exactly.
And the reason to be optimistic is that because the margin between how good the Chiefs (and a few other teams) are and how good the Bills are is so small only marginal improvement is necessary to be the best. So, for example, would you rather be, today, the Bills or the Browns? Would you rather be, today, the Bills or the Colts?
Small improvement is all that's necessary. McBeane aren't limiting their objectives to small improvements only - they'll go big every time it makes sense, like going after Miller. But all they need is small improvement to be the best team in the league, small compared to how much improvement everyone else has to achieve to be the best.
Think about the improvement that is reasonable to expect: Player improvement: Allen, Cook, Kincaid, Torrence, Bernard, Milano back, Benford, Rapp. And, yes, the receiving corps will improve. Coaching will improve. McDermott improves every season, because he demands it of himself. Brady is likely to improve (altho Dorsey didn't seem to). Through film study, the offenses and defenses will be adjusted, everything will be worked on much will improve. The whole point of McDermott's process is to create year-after-year improvement in all aspects of how the team functions.
If I own the second or third or fourth best team in the league, I like where I am, because I know that my team has a better chance to become the best than 25 or 28 other teams. I'm going to keep building on what I have.
My only problem with this is it is exactly where we have been since "13 seconds" and it is where we still are now, so I'm at the point where I will believe it when I see it.
I made a post a couple weeks ago how I eventually took this loss just as hard as 13 seconds. It was an unpopular take, understandably so. Thing is, I didn't say this in the post, but I now realize the main reason for how I felt about the game is because after "13 seconds" happened, we were ITCHING to get another shot at the Chiefs. There was no way in hell we were going to come up short again, right? And yet we did, again, in the form of shooting ourselves in the foot, again, after being in the best possible position to leave our own stadium with a walk-off TD (because if we had continued milking the clock en route to a TD, we probably make KC spend their last 2 time outs in the process, with very little time remaining and this time they would need a TD, not a FG).
And after all that, after being in that position only for this to happen AGAIN, was a hell of a gut punch and I can't help but wonder why I should be optimistic next time around if we couldn't take advantage of an incredible opportunity this time...
And trust me, on the surface, I feel like you, because I have to believe in the Bills, but deep down, this is the reality based on what I have been witnessing.
-
1
-
Fact vs Fiction: "Keon Coleman is not a separator"
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
I have to admit, this video is indeed a bit disappointing.
Especially if you compare it to the same video of Xavier Leggette.
It’s disappointing because Coleman is billed as the “contested catch guy” but if you watch all of Leggette’s targets, he has a higher success rate of coming down with those catches, and seems to be better at just about everything else as well.
For all the buzz about the trade KC, it’s the trade with Carolina that leaves me with more questions.
Do we know for sure that Leggette was not our guy?
For all those that say we wouldn’t have made the trade if Panthers were coming after our guy, ok, then what is the point of trading up one spot for either team in that case? Why would the Panthers make this trade if they weren’t worried about us taking Leggette??? They could have just had him with the next pick after we drafted Coleman if this was true.
Not sure I’m convinced we didn’t get screwed.