Beck Water
-
Posts
11,579 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Beck Water
-
-
4 hours ago, H2o said:
They can not show up to anything and hold out for an extended period. Higgins can sit out until week 11 (I believe) and still get his year accrued towards FA. Hendrickson can sit out all of TC. If they fine him for, it will only tick him off more. Then you have Chase coming up on his contract as well. Great times at WKRP
I would say that the latter is the cause of the former - the Bengals probably want to negotiate with Chase and then work out other contracts.
JMO.
-
3 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:
Just wait. Sports betting isn’t the endgame. The companies are losing money on it so far. Their goal is to get table games and slots on your phones so everyone can gamble 24-7. That’ll be their moneymaker if it happens.
Isn't that already here?
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, bills6969 said:
Talk about information advantage
I thought you could bet about damned near anything now a days
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, Shaw66 said:
You missed the point. It's not that some guys aren't valuable. Those guys you name are extraordinarily valuable. And they put up nice stats. They just don't fit the stud receiver mold. They aren't tall, they aren't big, and they aren't fast. They have other skills that make that, combined with decent size and speed, makes them valuable.
I've been talking to people here about the fact that the typical stud receiver - the big, tall, fast guys - aren't the kind of guys that teams are looking for now. Blazing speed is nice, but not necessary. Size is nice, but not necessary. There are a lot of guys with measurables like Samuel and St. Brown and Kupp, they're all over the place. What teams are looking for is guys with with decent size and speed and who are good scheme fits.
Now this is interesting. We've been talking about #1 receivers.
I just went back and looked at what you wrote in your post to which I replied. You did not use the phrase "typical stud receiver" or "big tall fast guys". This is what you said:
"I think, in fact, that receivers are becoming a dime a dozen, just like running backs. Successful teams don't need a top-five running back, and I think the passing game already has evolved to the point that they don't need a top-five receiver. I mean, they'll have a guy who is top-five in the stats, but he'll get there by being a scheme fit rather than being a great receiver. I think that's exactly what we've seen in Kansas City. And it's what we've seen in LA and Detroit and SF. "
I'm speaking to the point that guys like Kupp, Samuel, and St Brown are special players, and their teams regard them as special players. They are getting paid like special players. To use Emmanual Acho's term, they are "Freakazoids".
I searched your content for stuff about #1 receivers, stud receivers, and big tall fast guys. Bearing in mind the search engine here has its flaws, I don't find a lot of stuff where you specify that to you, #1 receiver or stud receiver means "tall big fast" to you. In fact, to the contrary. So if that's now what #1 receiver or stud receiver means to you, I'll agree that teams have value for WR who don't fit that mold now a days. But I don't think that's because receivers are a dime a dozen or because they are 'scheme fits', as you said in the post I responded to above.
From your post linked above, you said "A typical #2 is not good to great at getting separation and is not good to great at making contested catches. A guy who is good to great at one or both of those skills is a #1 receiver. People are naming players like Hill and Waddle and Cinci's wideouts. Someone mentioned Gronk and Edelman. They're all #1 receivers. Why? Because they're all good to great at getting open using their own skills, or in Gronk's case they're open when they're covered, so they don't need to separate."
I agree completely with your description of a #1 receiver quoted above, from August of 2023 to be fair. There's nothing in there about "big tall fast guys", and I think that's appropriate. I call to mind something Dawkins said about watching Diggs during an off season throwing session right after Diggs was traded to the Bills. It was something to the effect of "until then, I didn't realize a human could be that good at football".
That's a #1 WR to me: not a "big tall fast" guy, but a human who is "that good at football", who can separate, who can make contested catches, who - as you said in Aug 2023 - is "good to great at getting open using their own skills or is open when covered" or as Dawkins said, is "just that good at football" Jefferson is a #1 WR even though he's not that tall and not that fast, because he has those traits. Amon-Ra St Brown, same.
I believe teams still covet big tall fast guys and super-fast shifty guys who are "just that good at football". The catch (see what I did there?) is that while in theory, these guys superior physical traits should help them get open or be "open when covered". But a lot of times, other things aren't equal, which is why a 5th round receiver like Diggs or a 4th round receiver like Amon Ra St Brown who has enough height and speed but also the hard-to-define ability run deceptive routes, to fake DBs out of their cleats, who have passion and works at their craft, becomes better at football.
I don't believe so many WR get drafted in the first round because they are "decent scheme fits", nor do they get highly paid because of this. They get drafted in the first round because based upon college tape and measurables, GMs believe they will be "a human who could be just that good at football" in the NFL. And that's why they get paid, too, once they prove that's who they are.
Elsewhere, I made the point as far as I can tell, "#1 receiver" is becoming like "franchise QB" used to be on this board BA (before Allen): a term that people define in different ways, without realizing it, resulting in a lot of talking past each other. But in this exchange, it seems to me you are changing up what you're talking about, to insert a definition of #1 WR as a "big tall fast stud" that you weren't stating in your various posts on this topic, and that differs from a definition you have used in previous posts (like last August, quoted above).
-
1
-
-
On 4/24/2024 at 6:35 AM, section122 said:
A thought I can't shake:
How many wrs currently in the nfl would you trade 2 1st round picks for? It isn't many. I get the idea of the player being cost controlled but I still have a hard time seeing it being worth it especially since it likely will cost additional picks.
This. When we traded for Diggs, we only gave up 1 - late first rounder.
It would be next year's 1st, probably the next year's 2nd we got for Diggs, maybe this year's second. So then you have to figure in the opportunity cost of the players you would have drafted and had a chance to keep on a cost-controlled contract for 4 years.
The bottom line is, no one really knows for sure the effect it will have on a man to have a net worth of ~$20M (#10 pick) overnight - what effect it will have on his lifestyle, his work ethic, his willingness to sacrifice his body for teammates, his humility and willingness to listen carefully and take coaching. Will he keep his ears open, or will he become an "alligator station"?
That's one of the reasons 1st round draft picks have a variable success rate that has nothing to do with athletic measurables and skills shown on college game tape.
I'm not intending to pick on these college football players, btw. I don't think any of us really know what the effect on us would be to have $2M dropped on us, let alone $20.
13 hours ago, alg said:Didn't they pay out some money to Diggs just before trading him?
And doesn't the Dawkins terms make him more attractive?
I'm not sure what you mean about "the Dawkins terms".
No, they didn't pay out money to Diggs just before trading him. They kept him on the roster past the date where a guarantee for his 2024 salary kicked in, so Houston got a player who was owned $19M of which $18.5 was fully guaranteed. But Houston assumed 100% of the guarantees that kicked in just before the trade.
-
1 hour ago, Buffalo03 said:
Isn't Hendrickson the dirty player that deliberately rolled into Allen's leg 2 years ago and then laid a cheap shot on Haushka when he wad with the Jets in 2018?
Yes.
-
8 minutes ago, Warriorspikes51 said:
I would tell Dan Orlovsky, I would like to understand how he is defining "failure/disappointment" because I don't think he's telling us straight.
Kadarius Toney, Henry Ruggs, and N'Keal Harry certainly failures, but what about Dante Pettis? Jaelen Reagor? Rashad Bateman? What about Jameson Williams? Then there are guys who are can play, but maybe just aren't contributing at the level you'd like from a 1st rounder.
Then what about the fact that in many of those years, one or more 2nd round picks are out-performing the 1st rounders?
Questions, so many questions.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, JerseyBills said:
👀👀👀👀👀
I agree! His twitchtness is unbelievable, phenomenal hands and route running. A TD maker as Beane likes to say and as I said, he's so twitchy making life miserable for DBs..
Some insight into why they moved on from Diggs imo.
Brandon Beane said that? The same Brandon Beane who said this about Stefon Diggs?
"He’s a No. 1 receiver. I firmly believe that. I’m not wavering off of that,” Beane said. “I think teams — Listen, we have to continue to put weapons out there to keep teams from bracketing him or locking him down in different ways to take him away. They know you’re gonna want to — Stef can still play. I’m sure he would love to have that deep ball again. He’d be the first to tell you. He’s super competitive. He’s going to work his tail off this offseason. I know there’s various reasons or questions on this, there’s production and all that, but I still see Stef as a No. 1 receiver.”
I think Beane tends to speak the truth, but not "the whole truth" or "nothing but the truth" this time o' year.
-
39 minutes ago, MikePJ76 said:
that whole athletic mock draft was kind of unrealistic.
If they do anything like this for a WR he had better be among the leagues top wr in year one.
Agreed on both points.
In 2018, I will say this, though:
Buscaglia called the Bills drafting Josh Allen, although he called them as trading up to #5 with Denver vs #7, and giving up 2019 1st rounder as well as 2018 2nd round, and drafting Allen #5. And we have heard from Beane that they had a tentative deal fleshed out with Denver which Denver backed out of because "their guy" was on the board.The thing is, when the Bills traded up in 2018 you could read the tea leaves that they were "QB or Bust". Dealing Cordy Glenn to trade up in the 1st round, etc.
Where we are, wanting a team to trade all the way back to #28, is a hard sell, whatever Beane might or might not like to do.
PS on the other hand, in 2018 Charlie Campbell had the Bills trading up to #7 and drafting a safety, Derwin James. Nothing against James, he's a fine safety but for the draft resources
-
1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:
I'm barging in here and not even sure about the details you guys have been talking about, but this point about Kelce is something I've been thinking about lately. Yes, it's true that Kelce is super special, but I think it's important to recognize that he doesn't succeed with physical dominance. He doesn't have great speed, he isn't a great run after catch guy - he isn't extraordinary at breaking tackles. His RAC comes from being wide open.
I'm not sure I'd call Kelce a game changer, altho I won't argue that point. What he is is an excellent scheme fit.
Kelce is an excellent tight end with good hands and brains, playing in great scheme with a QB who can execute the scheme. The important point for this discussion is brains, scheme, and a QB who executes is what makes a great passing game in the current NFL.
I think, in fact, that receivers are becoming a dime a dozen, just like running backs. Successful teams don't need a top-five running back, and I think the passing game already has evolved to the point that they don't need a top-five receiver. I mean, they'll have a guy who is top-five in the stats, but he'll get there by being a scheme fit rather than being a great receiver. I think that's exactly what we've seen in Kansas City. And it's what we've seen in LA and Detroit and SF.
You've been banging that "WR don't really matter, teams don't need a top 5 WR, receivers are a dime a dozen" drum in several threads now.
Counterpoint: I don't know about "top 5 WR" that seems arbitrary. But here's some evidence about how the teams you cite think about that "they'll have a guy who's top 5 in the stats but he'll get there by being a scheme fit rather than a great receiver" philosophy. TL;DR they're voting with their $$ on that.
1) Detroit just signed their #1, 119 reception, 1515 yd wide receiver Amon Ra St Brown to a 4 year, $120M contract with $77M guaranteed. Why would they do that, if receivers are becoming a dime a dozen and successful teams don't need a top WR, just a "scheme fit"?
2) I don't think Deebo Samuel was signed to a 3 year , $71,550,000 contract with the San Francisco 49ers, including $24,035,000 signing bonus, $58,100,000 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $23,850,000 because the '49ers thought he was "just a scheme fit" where WR are a "dime a dozen"
And Christian McCaffrey's a unicorn - part receiver, part running back, and 100% perfect for the Niners, but that team didn't trade away the core of their 2023 draft board (2nd, 3rd, 4th plus 2024 5th), but either way, SF didn't give up that much with the right to pay him $14M this season on top of it because they thought Christian McCaffery was a "dime a dozen" as either a receiver or an RB
3) LA Rams signed Kupp to a 3 year, $80M extension in 2022 of which $75M were guaranteed because they view WR as a "dime a dozen" after his 145 reception, 1947 yd season. They appear to have lucked out with Puka Nacua, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that league-wide talent evaluators weren't saying "see, any old WR could succeed in that system" (if that were true, what stopped 2nd round pick Van Jefferson? What stopped 2nd round pick Tutu Atwell?
It's a nice hypothesis but it doesn't seem to stack up against how the teams you mentioned are actually spending their $$.
-
2
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Pete said:
The fact is the Bills D stopped KC's last 3 drives. The Bills Offense had 3 chances for a TD. 0 for 3.
Other than the end of game drive, last 3 drives were a TD, a fumble, and a punt.
So, No.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:
I agree with the thrust of what you're saying, but it might be similar for other positions too outside of QB (that is, no team is letting a good QB get away).
It absolutely is. My initial example in my response to the tweet was Tremaine Edmunds, who started 82 games in 5 seasons for the Bills.
He didn't not get a 2nd contract from the Bills. He had his detractors on TBD, but he didn't get signed to a 4 year, $72M contract with $50M guaranteed from the Bears because league-wide GMs thought he wasn't a "hit" as a draft pick. To the contrary, he was regarded well enough that he priced the Bills out of his market.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, finn said:
Wow, just 27% of WRs are signed to a second contract. Does this argue for moving up or NOT moving up?
by the drafting team....this tweet implies therefore they are not "hits", but, that may not reflect each player's actual career or contributions
Example: 2000 draft
1st round WR
Peter Warrick (#4) -> played 5 years for Cincy, 1 year FA contract with Seattle
Plaxico Burress (#8) -> played 5 years for Pittsburgh, signed a 6 year $25M contract with NYG, big $$ for that time
Neither signed a 2nd contract with their drafting team, so both aren't "hits" by the criteria of this tweet
But Warrick's best year was 79 catches 819 yds and his FA deal was his last year in the league
Burress had 4 - 1000+ yds seasons and finished his "careerus interruptus" with 8500 yds and 553 receptions
Very different career trajectories
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, BillsFan130 said:
Are they like 14ish?
Would you trade that much capital for Brian Thomas?
As I would assume the big 3 WRs would be well gone by then.
Personally I hope bills move into early 20s and draft BT, 14-16 may be a bit rich IMO
Yeah, the Saints have the 14th pick
One thing I'm pretty certain of is that the draft seldom goes the way we expect it to. Seems to me in 2018 we had people saying like, the first 5 or 6 picks would all be QBs
Well, they weren't
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Mikey152 said:
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
I think you're kind of missing the point, but I don't have energy to work on this, sorry!
-
7 minutes ago, The Jokeman said:
and as good as our offense was against the Chiefs, it was the Chiefs defense that stopped us when the game mattered or even I could say our lack of defense wasn't able to stop the Chiefs offense enough to win. I mean our offense put up the 2nd most points the Chiefs gave up all season in that playoff game and we still lost.
If you haven't yet watched it, I would strongly recommend that you give a view to JT O'Sullivan "The QB School" Youtube piece on the KC @ Bills playoff game.
A team between two great teams will often hinge on 3-5 plays. In this case, we had at least 3 potential game-changing plays, 2 catchable balls that were not; and a throw to the EZ where the blocking call probably wasn't optimal. On two of those plays, the Chiefs D didn't stop us so much as we stopped ourselves.
And yes of course, our D wasn't able to stop the Chiefs as much, that's what happens when you start what someone here quipped "the Little Sisters of the Poor" at LB and somewhat at CB.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Mikey152 said:
If Kincaid can't get off the line as a TE, he probably shouldn't have been a first round pick...
Oh, Dear.
How many TE (first round or not) normally line up as X or Y receivers and find success there?
-
1 hour ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said:
here was the tweet i saw tompsett retweet
this is something
I'm not sure "signed a second contract with the team that drafted them" is a good criterion to decide if a player is a "hit" or a "miss". Take, for example, Edmunds. Did he sign a 2nd contract with the team that drafted him? No. Was it because he was a "miss"? No, he started 5 years for the Bills and didn't sign a 2nd contract only because he made himself a very high priced FA, and we prioritized re-up'ing our 1st round QB (drafted that same year) and 1st round DT.
And (for example) 2019 QB Daniel Jones counts as a "hit" because he was offered a 2nd countract - but do Giants fans count him as a hit? Do we?
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Slippery Rubber Mats said:
Absolute gems in that thread
I'm going to pick on two of my favorite posters here:
On 4/26/2018 at 8:40 PM, HappyDays said:
God I actually think we'll start Peterman this year
Obviously, both of these gentlemen were proven correct.
We DID start Peterman that year, including for the Season Opener (for half a game)
and
It was a Clown Show
-
1
-
-
30 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:
I guess that I’m bullish on Samuel because I’ve seen so much of him. I saw every snap that he played at Ohio State. I’m a big fan of the player. He is still a converted RB, best with the ball in his hands. He isn’t a great route runner. He isn’t a pure deep guy. He’s a guy that will run some routes, catch screen, flares and get some carries. He’s a rich man’s McKenzie. If people are relying on his threat on the boundary to keep defenses honest, that’s not who he is.
I think we agree far more than we disagree - we certainly agree playing the boundary receiver especially against press man is not Samuel's best "jam". In fact if you look at the charts on Nextgen Stats, looks to me like relatively few from the LOS and ? None? on the boundary?
From what I've seen though, calling him a "rich man's McKenzie" is either giving McKenzie too much credit or selling Samuel way too short as the player he's been in the NFL, or both. I think he's a far better route runner than McKenzie evolved into his last 2 years with the Bills (and he did evolve), tracks the ball better, and has far better YAC skills. McKenzie was a glorified gadget guy who flubbed his opportunity to show out as a slot; Samuel is (or has become) a legit slot receiver who has (or had, in Carolina) quickness enough to run gadget stuff.
But then, I thought Harty might be an upgrade on McKenzie for route running AND gadget plays and how did that work out, just to put my opinions in context, I can and have been off
And again, we agree boundary or x receiver is just not Samuel's jam.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, 2003Contenders said:
If one of those receivers surprisingly falls out of the top 10, then I can honestly see a serious possibility of an "aggressive" trade happening. The framework is there from the 2017 move that cost the Chiefs their #27 overall and 3rd-round pick to move up to #10. I would imagine similar compensation would be in play for a move up from 28 to, say 11-13. Of course, the Bills do not have a #3 this year -- so likely the cost would be one of the #2 picks NEXT year (plus the 2025 #1) in order to move up from 28. That is much easier to stomach, provided that the receiver really is an immediate-impact difference-maker.
I really do hope that "aggressive" does not mean trading away anything significant to move into the top 20 to land whomever they have ranked as their 4th receiver (BTJ or Worthy or whomever). I could live with a move like they have made in each of the last 2 drafts (parting with, say, a 4th rounder) to move up a few spots to solidify such a pick. But I would not consider that "aggressive".
Don't forget this move also cost the Chiefs their 2018 #1.
Otherwise good analysis and I agree with you.
Imma say if Ben Allbright is reporting it confidently, there's a good chance Beane has been talking to Denver about Pick #12.-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:
if you google “How tall is Xavier Worthy” his height he’s 6’-1” every where else though. So not sure what’s accurate, but during combine the big knock was being over 6 feet tall and weighing 164 pounds. Here is a couple for examplehttps://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/4683062/xavier-worthy
https://texassports.com/sports/football/roster/xavier-worthy/12556
Either way, he’s still a stick figure though as you 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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:
Does someone really believe that the WR that the Bills draft will not be their number 1 immediately?? 😂😂 Is that for real? The Bills have a solid slot WR with good production on low volume. They have a gadget guy that is good with the ball in his hands. If we do not understand that the draft pick walks off the bus as the alpha in the WR room we do not understand the current WR room.
I don't know what is meant by "alpha" - that's usually a term used to reflect dominance, and a rookie really better have a more modest approach and, no matter how good he is, recognize the NFL equivalent of "that's nice sonny, but this here's the fleet"
I personally hope the Bills draft someone who will be ready to step in play a majority of the snaps as the X receiver, if that's what you mean, because that's clearly where the gap in the Bills WR game is right now.
I think I've queried you before regarding whether you're referring to Curtis Samuel as "a gadget guy that is good with the ball in his hands". If so, I continue to think you're seriously mispresenting a receiver who, except for the season he was on IR, has been playing >60% of the snaps and contributing >60 receptions and >600 yds 4 of his last 5 seasons (the 5th season being, IR). I agree he's not a boundary receiver, but he's way more than "a gadget guy", gadget guys don't take that many snaps or produce that much.
6 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:Do you need a true #1 WR to win a Super Bowl?
WR, no. Receiver, yes.
I don't know if you've noticed, but "#1 receiver" seems to be a bit like the term "franchise QB" we used to bruit around all the time when we didn't have one. It means different things to different people and folks argue about it without clarifying what it means to them or the chap they're talking with.
-
1 minute ago, BillsFanForever19 said:
Trading up is a no brainer, if not a necessity, unless we want to settle for, at best, the 6th WR off the board.
Thomas will be gone by 28. And anyone underneath us that is interested in a WR is going to jump ahead of us because they know we're going to take one and quite possibly their "guy".
The question is - is it an "aggressive" trade up they're hearing about or simply "aggressively" trying to move up any number of slots?
Gentle reminder that the 6th WR off the board is not necessarily the 6th best WR in the draft
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Draft Day Coverage?
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
Well, I don't have cable so it's either ABC or bananagrams. I'm kind of leaning towards bananagrams.