Mikey152

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.

Not true...alignment is alignment. They have to have an eligible receiver on each side of the LOS.

Modern day? Alignment rules are alignment rules... You need an eligible receiver on each side of the line of scrimmage. They can be close to the ball (tight) or far (split). Either way, they have to line up on scrimmage, which means they cannot be in motion at the snap and the defense can touch them immediately upon the snap...so press man is always an option for covering them. Because of those realities, you'd like your ends to be able to hold up physically. Because tight ends play often play in line and block LB and DL, it is obvious that they should be bigger. Split Ends, on the other hand, usually only have to fight off CB so "bigger" is relative and there is probably a point where they can be too big, especially if it inhibits their explosiveness after the initial 5 yards. Flat out, it is hard to scheme open a split end. If the defense wants to play press man, you can't really stop it. So the most valuable guys at that spot are guys that don't need a scheme to help them get open against any kind of coverage...and those guys tend to be big and fast because they need to be physical and explosive, depending on the coverage. If they aren't physical enough to get off a press, or not explosive enough to eat up a cushion, well then they can be taken away easily and your offense loses a target and that player is kind of a waste. Side note...this is one of the underrated aspects of a two TE offense where both TE are effective pass catchers...it negates the need for a true Split end if both TE line up on the ball...the rest of you eligible receivers no longer have to and you take away their ability to press man on the outside if you want.

My favorite part about the “let us play” comment? Not only did Toney line up Offside, he also had a pretty blatant pick several yards downfield that could have been called. THAT would have been a tough call, but the right one. quite frankly, the Chiefs play right on the edge of the rules when it comes to illegal contact. If the refs didn’t let them play, they could have had 30 penalties last night.

I went to church Sat night so I could watch the game...but they texted me in the morning saying they were short staffed (I volunteer) due to illness and I ignored it so I could watch the game. Definitely my fault.

Here's the thing...did you actually look at any of those drafts and who OTHER teams took? Sure, there are a few stars in there but man alive there are some terrible names. Like guys that have already been on multiple teams or out of the league bad.

For fun, I went back and looked at these drafts...if you think our picks are bad, you should see some of the other guys. Like, at least Epenessa and Basham play. The year we drafted Singletary, the 5 best guys in the third round were: Singletary, Dionte Johnson (taken before our pick), Mclaurin, Mcgovern and Damien Harris...

Also ignored is draft position...for most of Mcbeane's tenure (ie all but one year) they have been a playoff team. During that same time, the Bengals were pretty bad for all but two of those seasons. It's a lot easier to be a genius if you are picking in the top 5 of every round.

44, straight, and...same

So, IMO the gold standard for two TE offense in the modern NFL was the NE patriots circa 2010-2012. Hernandez and Gronk were both rookies in 2010. Pats went 14-2 (this was the year they got upset by Rex Ryan in the playoffs) Brady 65.9% 3900/36/4 Welker 86/848/7 Branch 48/706/5 (11 games) Gronk 42/546/10 Hernandez 45/563/6 They also had a 1000 yard rusher that season in Green-Ellis In 2011, the offense went nuts. They went 13-3 and lost to the giants in the SB. Brady 65.6% 5235/39/12 Welker 122/1569/9 Branch 51/702/5 Gronk 90/1327/17 Hernandez 79/910/7 I think the Bills can pull something in between these two seasons off...Welker=Diggs, Branch/Llyod=Davis, Gronk=Knox, Hernandez=Kincaid. Probably a stretch to expect Gronk production out of Knox, especially in 2011. That said, I do think he could catch a lot of touchdowns as the in-line TE and will probably draw some easy matchups when Kincaid is on the field. I think you could argue that the Bills players are better or at least as good at the other spots (Kincaid a projection, obviously). What derailed the pats were injuries (2012) and crimes (duh)...Bill B has been chasing this setup at various times ever since. 2011 was one of the best offenses I have ever seen. Just filthy.

That year they combined for 169 catches, 2237 yards and 24 TDS. 70% of that is like 120/1600/17…yeah I’d be happy with that

This pick is a dream come true. 12 personnel is traditionally a big grouping. If you can pass effectively out of that, you are almost unstoppable. It’s like a cheat code If teams play base or big, abuse those lb. Make them play nickel and run it down their throat until they bring down the safety…then go for the dagger. And do all of that without subs, so you can change tempo whenever you want. 2007 gets the hype, but that 11/12 Pats team with Gronk and Hernandez might have been the best team offense I’ve ever seen. Bill B has been chasing it ever since.

BPA isn't literally ranking players from 1-300+ and picking the highest rated player on your board... You grade players, and those grades put them into groups...usually rounds or something similar. Then, things like needs, scarcity, positional value, and even personal preference come into play. If you have 20 first round grades and you pick 25, you have a choice to make...you can either trade into the top 20 to take a first round graded player, or let it ride and hope one you need makes it to you. If you let it ride and either A) no first round guys make it or B) the guy(s) that do don't make sense for your team or C) Lots of guys are still left in that tier, then you trade back and acquire more picks whenever possible. Sometimes, you don't have a partner and you are forced to either reach or take a guy that doesn't fit your team...that's the definition of using your pick poorly. BPA is about picking someone worthy of your draft slot...not literally picking the highest graded guy on your board.

Light boxes and not a lot of short yardage carries are a big reason his YPC are so high. I think the fact that when its 3rd or 4th and 2 or goal to go, they aren't giving the ball to Devin very often (and when they do he doesn't have a great track record)...that's why they aren't bringing him back. That said, I don't think he is a bad back. He's just not what the Bills need.

It’s hard to take this post, and any other complainer’s post, seriously when they suggest that the Bills play a simple defense. Their defense is pretty much the opposite of simple. Sure, they don’t have elaborate or flashy blitzes, but their zone system is incredibly complicated and constantly checking into different plays/coverages based on personnel and alignment on offense. Our back 7 are probably the best coached in the whole league. That said…it’s unlikely this defense will just lineup and physically dominate the other team. Their players just aren’t wired like that or built like that. so in the playoffs when it is cold and you have injuries and the best offensive minds…it’s just not a great recipe. It was especially bad this year because the team was a shell of itself both physically and emotionally. I get everyone is upset we lost, and even more so about how we lost…but this board is just sad. I thought Bills fans were better than this.

It’s not really Andy Reid, and honestly it’s not really Travis Kelce either…he’s a great TE, but I see some people on here saying he’s just too big and too fast and that, flat out, is not the reason. Nobody wants to hear it, but it really comes down to his position and his quarterback. First, as a position TE is almost unguardable when they play in-line because the guys lining up over him (dl and lb) are trying to tackle the guy with the ball. If they focus too much on the TE, your pass rush and run defense suffers. If you try and cover him with a CB or Safety, you expose your back end and run defense. The way to stop a good TE without sacrificing other aspects of your defense is by playing zone and getting consistent pressure that gets home. Thats where the qb comes in. Mahomes makes teams pay if they pay too much attention to Kelce…but even more so his elusiveness and ability to buy time with his eyes downfield negates the best weapon at stopping a TE: pass rush. Mahomes abilty to threaten the whole field, combined with his ability to buy time and make plays is what makes Kelce great. With enough time, any decent TE or Rb can find space in a zone. I will give Reid this, though…that dude is a master a scheming “legal” opi. One more reason it is tough to play man against Kelce

Am I the only one that can read the graph? The Bills circle on the graph is significantly larger than the other teams around them in A) the standings and B) number of games missed. The fact that their circle is the same size as teams with significantly more injuries says exactly what everyone is saying...quality, not quantity, is the issue.

They also ran right at him quite effectively... I love Jerry and wish he could have retired a Bill, but at his age and salary, it just wasn't a fit and they parted amicably.