Beck Water

To be fair, I've heard more than one guy who is plugged in say that these days of GPS, the NFL FOs work far more off GPS data they now have in-game for college prospects vs. the "underwear olympics" at the combine.

I just wanna say I really like this trade for the Bills. I think it's fair value for both parties If we're going to trade up, this is the sort of trade up I'd like to see. And I don't know much about Brian Thomas Jr but I like his draft profile. Virgil, once again, a big salute for all the work you put in year after year to do these. SALute!

Well, I don't have cable so it's either ABC or bananagrams. I'm kind of leaning towards bananagrams.

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.

Isn't that already here?

I thought you could bet about damned near anything now a days

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).

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. 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.

Yes.

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.

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.

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

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 $$ on that. 1) Detroit just signed their #1, 119 reception, 1515 yd wide receiver Amon Ra St Brown to a 4 year, $120M contract with $77M guaranteed. Why would they do that, if receivers are becoming a dime a dozen and successful teams don't need a top WR, just a "scheme fit"? 2) I don't think Deebo Samuel was signed to a 3 year , $71,550,000 contract with the San Francisco 49ers, including $24,035,000 signing bonus, $58,100,000 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $23,850,000 because the '49ers thought he was "just a scheme fit" where WR are a "dime a dozen" And Christian McCaffrey's a unicorn - part receiver, part running back, and 100% perfect for the Niners, but that team didn't trade away the core of their 2023 draft board (2nd, 3rd, 4th plus 2024 5th), but either way, SF didn't give up that much with the right to pay him $14M this season on top of it because they thought Christian McCaffery was a "dime a dozen" as either a receiver or an RB 3) LA Rams signed Kupp to a 3 year, $80M extension in 2022 of which $75M were guaranteed because they view WR as a "dime a dozen" after his 145 reception, 1947 yd season. They appear to have lucked out with Puka Nacua, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that league-wide talent evaluators weren't saying "see, any old WR could succeed in that system" (if that were true, what stopped 2nd round pick Van Jefferson? What stopped 2nd round pick Tutu Atwell? It's a nice hypothesis but it doesn't seem to stack up against how the teams you mentioned are actually spending their $$.

Other than the end of game drive, last 3 drives were a TD, a fumble, and a punt. So, No.

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.

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

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

I think you're kind of missing the point, but I don't have energy to work on this, sorry!

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.

Oh, Dear. How many TE (first round or not) normally line up as X or Y receivers and find success there?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.