Mikey152
-
Posts
210 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Mikey152
-
-
53 minutes ago, Mango said:
Adonai Mitchell is interesting. Some of the attitude concerns seem to be linked to his lack of management of his diabetes. I’ll be curious if the Bills think they can manage that. Because if they can he’s an unbelievable athlete.
For any of the film gurus on the board I am curious is Franklin plays faster than his combine time.
Franklin is interesting. 4.41 isn’t exactly slow, but his 1.61 10 yard split was.His jumping was fine/good and so were his shuttles, so it was probably just a bad start. Maybe because he was sick. That said…his flying 20 (the second half) was insane. This matches what you see when you watch him play…his top gear is elite. Worthy was the only guy faster on the field last year.
-
3
-
-
Nobody is arguing the Bills don't need guys that can separate and generate YAC...it was a huge problem last season.
The point is, there are lots of guys in the draft this year that excel at that, so we should be excited. But instead, lots of posters want to trade our whole draft for a big-bodied traditional X. We don't need that to accomplish the goal, especially if we plan on running 12 personnel at any kind of decent clip.
-
We are way off topic, now...
This started off as a post about why we don't need a traditional X receiver because we will run a lot of 12 personnel, so it will be harder to press our skill players.
Now we are talking about how bad we were against man coverage...and the Chiefs get brought up a lot. Go back and watch the Chiefs game...the Chiefs corners were mostly lining up off the ball and being aggressive with the route stem (often beyond 5 yards, but I digress). I only really saw press man when Diggs was playing on the LOS (no Davis and 3 or 4 WR sets).
Do we need man beaters? sure. But you don't have to be big to beat man coverage...you have to be athletic. We weren't too small last year, we were too SLLLOOOOWWWW. And the guys that were fast (Im looking at you, Harty) were trash.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Brandon said:
As if a 4.41 isn't fast.
It confirms what he did on the field. He's fast. He runs by people.
Not only that, but It's clear just by looking at his legs that he is lanky...I bet his top speed is top tier.
Edit - Only Worthy had a higher on field speed last season. His 10 yard split was 1.61...so a 4.41 is incredible.
-
25 minutes ago, Gugny said:
FACT: There is not one person on the planet who can honestly say that there is a noticeable difference between a standard DVD and a Blu-Ray DVD.
100% gimmick
On a tiny TV, maybe...
Try watching a DVD on a 70+ inch TV.
-
25 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:
Dawson Knox is a pretty mediocre receiver, though. You lose a lot when you're putting him on the field instead of a WR, particularly in playoff games that turn into shootouts when the opposing qb is Burrow or Mahomes. I think @BADOLBILZ is referring specifically to playoff football here, which is where the Bills fall apart offensively.
And you lose something in the running game when you take him off...
I'm not saying you're wrong, but that's a different conversation. Benching Knox for a rookie WR and running lots of 3 wide doesn't really seem like something we are going to do a lot, but who knows...I suppose it is possible and may be dictated by the opponent.
-
38 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think having Knox and Kincaid as our two 'ends' is a winning formula. Not enough speed to threaten defenses vertically. And what if one gets hurt?
TEs are nice. But a team needs a diversity of weapons to challenge a good NFL defense. Let me daydream for a moment. Imagine we had our current TEs and wideouts and added Eric Moulds and Lee Evans to the mix. That would make for a dynamic aerial attack. We need to move more in that direction.
This is an acceptable take...the two TE set isn't for everyone, and if the goal is to push Knox and/or Kincaid to the bench (and the whole 6th lineman concept), then that is a different story.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:
Oh, I read it all. I clearly addressed your point about the import of WHERE players line up on the LOS. In real application, it matters. What you are talking about is compromising with regard to matchup advantages.
That's a very "on paper" view of the game.
And on paper Stef Diggs should have been putting up big numbers in the postseason in Buffalo. Unfortunately, on the field, his lack of physicality diminished his impact when the officials inevitably tucked away their flags. There are clear advantages to having both size and speed on the perimeter. Especially with the type of QB the Bills have. Whether you call that a "need" or not is just semantics. It's just unintelligent to not aspire to it.
A few points...
I'm not really seeing where you addressed my point about "where" players are lined up...are you talking about having an X on the LOS so another receiver can go in motion? If so, you're literally missing the entire point of my post. With two TE on the field a significant amount of the time, there is less need to line up a receiver at X when you can just have a TE do it.
Further, I think you are missing the whole point. Of course, all things being equal I would take a big fast WR with good hands and ability to separate...but those guys are almost always draft in the top 10. If they slide past that, there is usually something wrong with them. I'd take a Calvin Johnson, sure...but I don't want another Gabe Davis. In the late first round, you're going to be choosing between big fast guys with holes in their game, slot guys, and burners that lack size. Everyone I've seen on this board thinks our WR are too small and we need the big bodied X receiver like Mitchell or Leggette (or mortgage the future for Odunze) to go with Shakir and Samuel, and pretty much ignore and/or want to double dip on guys like Worthy, Franklin, Wilson, etc...all of whom were more productive in college AND better deep threats/YAC players.
Maybe you should go watch the Lions play offense. And while you're at it, tell me all about their huge X receiver...I'll wait.
-
13 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:
Yeah what @Mikey152 is missing is the critical importance of big plays.
Defense now is all about preventing them.........and the offense desperately need them because it's hard to execute 10-18 play drives in an era of such turnover and so little practice without unforced errors........let alone the forced one's.
It's why scoring fell off around the league last season.
A lot of teams who thought they had enough good weapons going into last season found out they did not.
Those outside positions..........particularly the X being on the LOS and thus allowing you to put another receiver in motion to free them up.........are critically important because it's easier to get chunks out there if your QB can get the ball deep.
And Allen is a unicorn on a lot of deep throws. He isn't a great bucket-ball tosser but he can reach parts of the field with ropes that defense's just aren't going to be able to consistently cover without leaving something wide open underneath or in the middle. Not leaning into that strength would be organizational malpractice.
People think that the Bills were killing it offensively under Brady but the truth was that it was a struggle. They were having to run Allen almost 10x per game down the stretch to make their small-ball passing game work.
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.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, JMM said:
Nice writeup, but I disagree. In the NFL it's still the case you need a wr that can take the top off of a D, no matter the type of D. They need a true X.
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.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, ngbills said:
I get the formation discussion but dont get the point that we dont need an X receiver. I may be taking liberties here, but most are referring more to the X as the #1 WR. The Bills do desperately need a #1 WR and that #1 is likely an X. But the NFL game has become much more dynamic than X lines up here, Y there, etc. Guys move around and your #1 will be in the slot, outside, in the backfield. Its all about creating mismatches. The Bills lack that guy (the traditional X) that teams will want to double team. WIthout it the Bills become a lot less dangerous. Nobody will be scared of Kincaid, Knox, Shakir, Samuels.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:
If a defender misses on a jam, thats on the defender, not the offensive player being too quick. These rules now days allow the defender to literally be right at the line and to mug the crap out the player for 5 yards. Try jamming DK vs jamming Chase. Much tougher to do anything to alter DK than Chase.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, Buffalo_Stampede said:
Hardest players to jam are small quick guys. Easiest are big guys.
Its not about size and strength, its about technique and understanding what the defense is trying to do.
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.
-
6 minutes ago, warrior9 said:
Did you watch the Bills/ Chiefs game? We get abused at the line every time we play them.
have you watched the Chiefs / Spags play at all? They would probably disagree heavily here.
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
-
8 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:
Happens all the time my man. Teams were doing it to Diggs all last year.
Most of Diggs big plays this year were when he was off ball against aggressive coverage.
1 minute ago, Logic said:Thanks for this post.
It likely won't get the play it should, because many don't care to get into the nuance of positional alignments, tight ends vs split ends, etc, but...it's good stuff. I appreciate you taking the time to type it up.
For what it's worth, I agree.
I think the Bills are going to try their hardest to come away with a traditional X anyway, but if they don't manage to get one, I think they'll be fine, for the reasons you stated.
The scheme versatility and creativity of modern NFL offenses -- not to mention the way NFL rules are currently set up -- make it so that you can have all sorts of non-traditional collections of personnel and can still produce on offense.
NFL offenses are more likely to be limited by the imagination of their playcaller than by any personnel shortcomings they may have.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.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:
I dont trust Joe Brady enough to be able to scheme plays where a traditional X is not needed. I think we will end up with these smaller slot guys all getting jammed at the line.
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
-
7
-
1
-
1
-
7
-
-
13 minutes ago, Mikey152 said:
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.
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
-
1 minute ago, Beck Water said:
Oh, Dear.
How many TE (first round or not) normally line up as X or Y receivers and find success there?
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.
-
1 hour ago, Beck Water said:
I thought (I could be wrong) that NFL.com used the official data from the combine. They typically lack data from players who didn't participate in drills at the combine, for example, even if data from their college pro days is out there. Of course a typo is possible anywhere, I guess.
I'm not paying so much attention to his height and weight, as to his scouting report because Zierlein usually says stuff I nod about if I come back to it in a couple years. I "get it" that there's an argument to be made for BPA, but taken to its extreme obviously you could wind up with a team full of DE and no DT or something. So "need" has to crawl into there somehow.
Like many here, my perception of the Bills current best receivers (Kincaid, Samuel, Shakir) is that all of them do their best work with a free release, and none of them are at their best trying to win a release against press man on the boundary. Samuel can do it, but I think I read his most recent years have been ~75% of his snaps from the slot. Shakir can play on the boundary but at best "he has to demonstrate" against press man and his short arms handicap him there.IMO, we really have lacked someone with the tools to win against "sticky" physical coverage even with Diggs on the team the last couple of years and it's cost us in playoffs. It certainly cost us in 2019 when our top receivers were 5'10 John Brown and 5'8" Cole Beasley, and Allen wound up directing critical throws to Duke Williams and Pat DiMarco in the playoffs 'cuz Brown and Beasley were being erased.
So when I read stuff like " lacks play strength and release quickness to defeat a quality NFL press" and "lacks the physical tools to catch when contested and needs to prove he can hold up to a more physical brand of football" as well as "needs to improve efficiency and quickness getting off the ball. Lack of hand strength gets him bullied on contested catches......Takes reps off when he’s not expecting the throw to come his way......Fails to adjust his speed to ball placement consistently enough." I have a hard time seeing him as the right match of "need-adjusted BPA" or whatever it is being called now.
Of course, as Beane has pointed out, there are different ways to fill needs, so if he falls to us and we've rated him as BPA because they have enthusiasm for his potential, So Be It but I'm going to have uncomfortable CJ Spiller flashbacks if the Bills trade up for the guy.
I honestly can't pretend to know enough about college football to have a meaningful personal opinion about who we should draft, but I do have views about where the Bills current roster has shown itself lacking the previous season and likely to lack after new-league-year roster moves.
If Kincaid can't get off the line as a TE, he probably shouldn't have been a first round pick...
-
12 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:
Its worse...hes actually 2 inches taller at 6'1" and 165 pounds. He is literally a stick figure thats not gonna be able to get off the line in bad weather games.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1 minute ago, Back2Buff said:
The Dolphins have none of the X,Y,Z crappy classifications and had the number 1 passing offense. Teams that over think these roles will end up setting themselves back. Speed and explosiveness will always kill.
Not true...alignment is alignment. They have to have an eligible receiver on each side of the LOS.
The Bills are on the clock: Pick 33
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
Value wise, yes...
But if their guy is at 33, you never know. They have a lot of picks tonight (5)...going down to 4 AND getting a guy they covet might be worth it.