Mikey152

clearly you didn’t read the post…probably just the title. Nowhere did I say the Bills should play small ball or not challenge defenses vertically. I also didn’t say they shouldnt draft a deep threat…in fact, I am sure they will. What I DID say was this idea of procuring a Thomas or Mitchell or even Coleman type of receiver over a Worthy or Franklin is a bit of a mistake. big plays, yes. Big receiver, no.

You don’t think Tyreek takes the top off a defense? Because he can’t be playing X and be moving at the snap. nobody is saying they can’t use an upgrade at receiver…just that the type of receiver they need shouldn’t be based on shakir/samuel or who left. When you include the TE, their possibilities open up quite a bit.

I think that IS the point, though. The Bills could really use some legitimate weapons...that isn't really up for debate. What IS up for debate is the skill set necessary for said weapons. Thomas and Mitchell over Worthy and Franklin, for example. All because the later two are too skinny.

The whole point is, if a receiver isn't on the line, the defense has a hard time jamming them. Especially if they are quick. Most off the ball receivers don't get jammed at the line...a physical CB might play the route stem and take advantage of some liberal illegal contact rules to maintain leverage, but they're not trying to disrupt right from the line like true press man/bump and run on an on-the-ball receiver.

Especially if they are off the ball. If you can't get a hand in their chest at the snap, it's gonna be hard to get a good jam on a quick guy once he can move laterally.

You need to go watch the all-22 of that divisional game. Were they aggressive? sure. Did they play press man against off ball receivers? no. did Diggs line up on the ball alot in that game? Yes...even when he was in the slot. Why? no Gabe Davis and Knox didn't see a lot of snaps

Most of Diggs big plays this year were when he was off ball against aggressive coverage. Thanks. And don't get me wrong...I live in Ohio and I like MHJ just as much as the next guy. He can play on or off ball, and would likely send one of Knox/Shakir/Samuel to the bench instead of just Shakir/Samuel for a guy like Worthy or Franklin. But to me, that is more of a luxury than a need.

You don't play true press against a receiver off ball. It would be suicide. More like press bail where you line up on the line and bail out at the snap, trying to play the route stem with a more aggressive cushion.

Problem Statement: On various message board threads and draft analysis shows/tweets/articles, the Bills have been noted as needing an X receiver. This is likely due to the loss of Gabriel Davis and Stephon Diggs this offseason. My Take: This is a very simplistic take, and doesn't really take into account the Bills full roster makeup. Why is that my take??? The Short Version: Dalton Kincaid and Dawson Knox The Long Version: Most roster construction on offense is based on a fairly simple rule around what is and isn't a legal formation. All offenses, no matter how original, must have 7 or more players on the LOS for at least one second before the snap. The two players on either end must be eligible receivers, and everyone between them is ineligible. So almost every formation in the NFL has 5 OL, 2 Ends and 4 Backs. Anything else takes an eligible receiver off the board, and is usually only reserved for goal line/short yardage. Why does this matter? Well, ends traditionally come in two types...Tight and Split. In other words, guys that line up close to the ball/OL and guys that don't. Every team has two of them on the field at all times, but there is no rule that says there needs to be one of each or how far a from the line a split end is. Also important to note before we talk about the Bills is that there are all kinds of backs...quarterbacks, running backs (half, full, tail, etc) and slot backs (fyi, flanker is just a term for a half back that lined up wide of the end and existed before forward passes were even legal). The traditional "receiver" backs, ie flanker and slot, are differentiated by where they line up...if you're between the OL and the end, you're a slot, and if you are outside the end, you're a flanker. This subtle difference often influences who covers them and the routes they run, so they are different positions even though they are both receivers that play off the line. Anyway, on to the Bills. Because every team needs two ends and most teams fill at least one end role (and sometimes 2) with a wide receiver, it is assumed the Bills need at least one split end on the roster. And split ends traditionally are a bit bigger, because they have to play on the line and cannot be moving on the snap, so they are more susceptible to press coverage so they need to be able to be physical and make contested catches. If they can make aggressive defenses pay with deep speed too, even better. Adding to this, the Bills lost their two "best" traditional split ends in Diggs and Davis (though I would argue Diggs is more of a flanker/slot). BUT...based on what I said above...You don't NEED a "split end" (aka a big WR), you just need two ends. You can also accomplish this with TWO TIGHT ENDS. You know, like Knox and Kincaid. So long as they are both on the line (tight, wide, or inbetween) and on opposite sides of the formation, all the other skill players can play off the ball. You can roll with 2 TE and two flankers, or two TE, a slot and a flanker, Two TE and two slots, or any other combination...You can also line up with both TE on one side of the LOS and a WR like Shakir or Samuel on the line on the other side, and if the defense shows press man you can use a shift to move one of the TE to the other side and let the WR take a step or two back or even go in motion. The point is, as long as the two TE are on the field together, you can dictate who can and can't be pressed. All that said, there is a difference between a slot and a flanker, too. the Bills could really use a true flanker to stretch defenses vertically. They just don't have to be huge. Anyway, that's my 2 cents...take it or leave it. I'd bet money that if they don't move up they are looking at Worthy/Franklin

To clarify... Legal formation only requires that 7 players are on the LOS (behind ball and infront of centers belt) at the time the ball is snapped. The furthest from the ball (the end) on either side are eligible receivers...hence tight and split end. Everyone else is a back and doesn't have to be on the line and doesn't need to reset after motion. So if you have two TE in the game, and they both line up on the line...the rest of your eligible receivers don't have to. They can be anywhere on the LOS, so long as it is opposite sides. It's the beauty of the two TE look. Now I have posters saying Kincaid can't play TE? He's just a big slot? Then he was a waste of a pick...I also think that's a trash opinion, but whatever. Kincaid OL OL OL OL OL Knox Samuel Josh Shakir Cook Is a legal formation

He doesn't have to line up as an X. He just has to be on the line on the opposite side of the formation from Knox. It can be anywhere.

If Kincaid can't get off the line as a TE, he probably shouldn't have been a first round pick...

In Buffalo, he wouldn't really need to be on the line. I know everyone thinks we need an X (and it wouldn't hurt), but the truth is we have two TEs that will see a lot of snaps together, often eliminating the need for boundary receivers to play on the line or be set when the ball is snapped. Will there be times we need a guy that can get off press? Sure. But I would say it's not as big a need here with Knox/Kincaid. What we really need is a guy that can stretch the field vertically and keep defenses honest.

I know we all assume the Bills are looking for a boundary receiver with their top pick after losing Diggs and Davis...but I'm not entirely sure that has to be the case. The Bills DO have two TEs that get should get a lot of snaps together, and one of the best things about rolling a 2 TE set is that none of your other skill players need to be on the ball in most alignments. Suddenly, multiple flanker/slot/pass-catching RBs is more viable. And then you carry 1 or 2 bigger receivers (Hollins and Shorter?) if one of the TE comes off the field or gets injured...but that guy isn't gonna get a ton of snaps in a perfect world. That's not to say a big body receiver wouldn't be nice, especially if they are still equally dangerous off the ball, but I don't think it's as important as grabbing a guy that is maybe a bit more limited overall but much better at what he does well. In other words...if you think of Knox as the starting TE and Kincaid as the starting X/split end...it's not as dire. Hollins becomes a backup, and you're looking for a guy that could either push Knox to the bench OR a guy that could push Shakir/Samuel to the bench.

Bottom line is, the more tools a guy has in his toolbelt, the more you can do with him. It doesn't always trump guys who are really good at a few things, but if all your receivers are limited in some way, you do become predictable on offense. Not everyone needs to be a jack of all trades, but having a guy who lines up on the ball and can get open is a big benefit for an offense...because a defense needs to roll coverage to stop them.