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.

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