Beck Water
-
Posts
11,533 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Beck Water
-
-
53 minutes ago, folz said:
Great original post Shaw. I took up your challenge from your above post...it's not the most "in-depth" dive, and doesn't answer all of your questions, but it at least gives a good overview to try and draw some conclusions.
Here are the snap counts, targets, and yards for the top pass catchers in 2023, divided into the first half of the season and the second half of the year:
Player 1st 8 games (snaps/targets/yards) Last 9 games (snaps/targets/yards)
Diggs 85%/90/748 78%/70/435
Davis 86%/47/434 81%/34/312
Kincaid 55%/34/258 64%/57/415
Shakir 31%/15/167 70%/30/444
Knox 68%/28/102 (7 games only/INJ) 49%/8/84 (5 games only (INJ)
Sherfield 32%/8/44 36%/14/32
Harty 20%/16/113 7%/5/37
Cook X/22/192 X/32/253
Overall, looking at total passing targets, the Bills averaged 33 passing targets/game over the first half of the season, and 28 passing targets per game over the 2nd half of the season. So, there is a bit of a drop. Adding up all of the QB/RB rushing attempts, the Bills averaged 26 rush plays/game over the first half of the year, and 32 rush plays over the second half. So, the Bills had a 33/26 pass/rush split, or a 56%/44% pass/rush balance for the first half of the season, and a 28/32 pass/rush split, or a 47%/53% pass/rush balance over the back half. Obviously, end-of-the-year weather has something to do with rushing more in the second half, but it does seem offensive philosophy may have been involved as well. It was a closer balance in the 2nd half of the season, but leaned more to the run game than the pass. And interesting to note, though Cook's attempts did increase from 13 to 15 rushes per game in the 2nd half, the much larger increase in rushing was from Josh, who went from 4.75 rushes/game in the first half to 8.33 rushes /game in the 2nd half. Again, how much of that was philosophy and how much was end-of-the-year desperation, gotta get it done one way or the other, who knows?
This is great, thank you for putting this together.
Question: any particular reason you broke it down as 8 games and 9 games?
Reason I ask is that 'last 9 games' includes 2 games with Dorsey still as OC.
That might matter - I put this elsewhere, but when I looked at rush % and pass % in games where Brady was OC vs games where Dorsey was OC, the difference was even more significant than you note. The Bills had an overall 58%/42% pass/rush split under Dorsey. They shifted to a 48%/52% pass/rush split under Brady.
A lot of that, unfortunately, was rush attempts for Josh Allen - I make it 9.2 attempts/ game including playoffs with a Dorsey/Brady split. I really don't think we want to rely on Josh Allen as the best rusher on the team.
Anyway I think looking at it as Dorsey vs Brady makes some of the differences you noted more stark.
And yeah, we don't know how much was what Brady would like to do, and how much is "OK, these are the chess pieces still on my board, these are their capabilities, what can I do to win now?"
-
1
-
-
22 hours ago, Shaw66 said:
Yeah. There are many ways to skin the cat. They did need a running back, and they got a guy who might have what it takes to replace Cook eventually. And I don't particularly like a plan that says "we need a player, and we'll take two to be sure we get one who works out." You're almost certainly not going to keep both of them, so you're using two picks to fill one position. Not a fan of that, but I can't say it's wrong.
Going your way, they would need a running back in free agency. Going the way they did, they would need a receiver. Kind of six of one, half dozen of the other.
As someone said, Beane had a plan and he executed it The roster now looks pretty good to me. He had a variety of other ways he might have gone, too. Bottom line for me is that Beane knows what he's doing.
So we drafted Ray Davis at pick 128 in the 4th. There were 3 WR drafted pretty promptly in the 4th - 102, 110, 113.
Moving up 15-26 slots is A Lot, not just in terms of draft picks - but teams don't like to give up that much freedom of choice unless the trading team makes it very juicy for them. It may well be we tried to trade up, and didn't find a deal we were OK with.
The next receiver drafted, at 135, was drafted 22 slots later, suggesting teams may have perceived a talent difference.
Beane said in his presser that the team's evaluation of the WR we drafted and signed last year had a role in not drafting a WR in the late rounds. It may be that they like Shorter, Shavers, Thompson, and Hamler better as prospects than anyone within reach of our picks, IDK.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Warcodered said:
Where this question comes from is even better.
"If I get a call from Josh in the off season, it's usually him seeing some highlight, running into somebody, throwing with somebody, just something to ask me what I think about somebody, he called me at the Senior Bowl to ask what I think about a couple of guys there. He's been in the building the last couple of weeks since the off season program has started. We did give him some guys, we said "sit back there with the coaches, y'all watch them together and talk about how you'd use 'em, I'd like to hear what you see. He liked a lot of the guys, he really did, but Keon was one, I know he liked him a lot." Said Josh Facetimed him Friday at home and asked what he thought, and he (Beane) said "barring someone blowing me away, I'm going to take Keon" and he was pretty pumped."
A lot to unpack there;1) Confirms what I caught out of Josh's OTA presser, he did watch film cut ups on selected WR (and new information, with the coaches)
2) Kind of sounded to me as though Beane intended to take Keon at Pick 28 and just squeezed as much extra draft capitol as he could first
3) "throwing with somebody" But Josh doesn't throw or work out in the off season prior to OTAs because, because, I read it here on TBD!
-
2
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, TheWeatherMan said:
So everyone that complained for weeks after JA17 was drafted is pathetic? That’s like half the current message board and the other half that since changed their screen name to save face.
Nah. It was about 10-15 guys (maybe 11 or 12 after eliminating some sock puppets) who complained for weeks.
The majority of the board complained vehemently in 2-6 posts, got it out of their system in 3 days, then said "Oh well, He's a Bill now so we'll hope for the best!"
-
4 hours ago, boyst said:
Ummm. Wow
5 teams wanted pick 33 and gave a good offer to Beane for it
Yes wanted the 33rd pick. I don't buy it 100% because it's a great way to say Coleman was there man.
I see no reason it isn't plausible. I think historically, the #33 and #34 picks are very popular trade targets, being that the talent pool usually isn't very different between the top of the 2nd and the bottom of the 1st.
And, the Bills had just been giving off smoke signals "we're in the market for more picks or to move up with what we have" so why wouldn't 5 teams test the waters?
-
On 4/30/2024 at 10:32 AM, Logic said:
Obviously I want my franchise QB to have input, and I'm very glad they let him weigh in on his preferences.
That said...Josh has admitted that he doesn't watch "tape" on these guys or break it down with coaches or anything. He watches Youtube highlight reels, like the rest of us.I agree with the overall thrust of your post, but in his OTA presser Josh said something to the effect of he was "going down to watch film of every catch". Whether coaches or scouts were there, or how many receivers he watched, I don't know. It's probably something along the lines of 240 targets per dude, maybe 20 seconds per target - probably 90 minutes per dude, I could see Josh getting through 4-5 guys in a week easily while working out at OTAs and hanging out with the team.
It just bothers me because I feel people partially quote (which in meaning, becomes a mis-quote) Josh a lot here and then fluff it up into a BFD, not saying that's what you do or are doing here, just explaining why I'm kind of picking a nit.***********************
Following this up with: in his appearance on (I think) Pat Macafee podcast - it's linked elsewhere - Beane explicitly said that they gave Josh a group of guys and told him to sit with the coaches and watch their tape together and discuss them and how they would use them.
-
6 minutes ago, Logic said:
Ken Dorsey: "Josh Allen texted me 'you're the guy I want!'"
LOL
I've been trying to recall just what Josh said about Dorsey as OC when he was promoted, and it really was pretty much that positive. There was stuff about "my career changed when he walked into the building" and such like. Very positive.
The thing is it didn't stay that way long, it became "I have to see the field the same way he does as OC" which in hindsight, sounds like struggling.
11 minutes ago, MJS said:Yeah, exactly. Allen didn't tell them before the draft there is one single WR he wants and it is Coleman. It was more like, who out of these 3 or 4 receivers (Worthy, Legette, McConkey, and Coleman perhaps) would Allen like the best, and Allen said Coleman, but I'm sure he was fine with a number of receivers.
Those are the 4 that were at or around our original pick, but I honestly don't think Worthy was on our board in the late 1st/early 2nd at all.
I also think if the Bills had Legette on there it must have been significantly lower, because Carolina was NOT subtle about telegraphing their Legette Love.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, aristocrat said:
Tell Keon to go move in with Josh in cali and just work all off season
I was thinking more move in with Shakir and work with Eric Moulds (gloveless), though that place Diggs used to train would also be good.
I forget the name, but their motto was something like "won't get you stronger, won't get you faster, will get you open."
Seriously, Shakir had a huge jump in his catch % from 50% to 87% last season, and in that "Embedded" piece he credits working off-season with Eric Moulds, bare-handed. He said that working bare handed forces you to focus on refining your catching technique, then adding gloves takes it to another level.
I'm not saying that Coleman needs to improve his catch rate, but Diggs used to say that Josh's passes didn't hurt "if you catch them properly"-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:
Allen texted Coleman on Friday after Beane told him that is who they are taking. Pretty sure Beane alluded to telling Allen who they were taking, not the other way around.
The media has spun this into saying Josh telling Beane he wanted Coleman.
I mean, Josh may have said he wanted Coleman, but it was likely in some context - "we predict these 3 guys will go in the top 10 and we're not going to mortgage this draft and the next to move up there, even if we could which is not certain. We think these 6-7 guys will be within reach of our #28 pick, do you have a take?"
I doubt Allen's ranking would move the Bills draft board, but if there were 2 guys they were close on it might have influenced.-
1
-
2
-
-
16 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:
Nothing happens until June 1.
Tomorrow at 4 pm is the deadline for FA signings to count in the 2025 comp pick formula, so nobody significant being signed before 4 pm tomorrow. If there's a guy out there Beane wants to sign, he can make some cap moves and do it, though.
As far as Zay Jones, though, Zay Jones had a $10.7 cap hit this season, of which $7.5 M was new money (salary and workout bonus). That slots him in at Mike Williams/Adam Thielen/TiktokBoi range. Williams has been a consistant 70-ish YPG guy his last 3 years. Thielen, fell off a little in 2022 Minny but other than that, very consistant 55-60+ YPG guy since 2016 (3rd year).
Jones has hit 50+ ypg once in his career, 2022, behind Christian Kirk.
He's gonna want to wait a minute and see if someone else will pay him the way Jax did, or close, and I don't think he's got that ROI for that.
As far as the Bills,
to that. We're better off hoping for another 40 ypg season from Mack Hollins like he had with an OK QB, Carr, throwing to him in Vegas (but behind Devante Adams). Hollins seems to be a unique (and entertaining) guy with a great work ethic, which I think is more than you can count on Zay Jones to be.
-
2
-
5
-
-
8 hours ago, GASabresIUFan said:
Other then injury replacements, do we really need any other receivers? Last season our WR 4 & WR 5 had 21 & 22 targets respectively. In 2022 WR 4 had 20 targets and WR 5-9 had 30 targets total. in 2021 Davis was WR 4 and had a banner year with 63 targets, McKenzie at WR 3 had 28.
This coming season we already have 4 talented pass catchers and won't be relaying on the 4th WR to be Davis. If I had to guess Kincaid, Coleman, Samuel & Shakir will take the vast majority of the targets (70 to 110 each) with Cook as the 5th most likely target (about 50-60 targets). After them we have Knox who will see around 40 targets or more and Hollins who is perfectly capable of catching 30-40 balls as well if needed (he caught 57 w LVR in 2022). So what do we really need beyond those 7 players? That seems like more than enough depth for Josh.
Shorter, Hamler, Cephus, and the rest of the cannon fodder are competing for the WR5 role, which is a nothing burger. Over the last 5 years, the WR5 has averaged 23 targets a season. Is this someone we are really worried about?
I think we do need other receivers, yes. It's a position at which injuries are common. So far Shakir has been durable, but he's also not yet seen more than 50% of the snaps. Samuel has been durable the last couple years but again, last year ~50% of the snaps.
Remember 2022 where the plan going into the season was evidently to platoon Crowder and McKenzie? Then Crowder broke his leg, and it was all up to McKenzie. That meant when Davis got dinged, we had Jake Kumerow, Isaiah Hodgins, and Tanner Gentry seeing playing time, and after we lost Isaiah Hodgins to an injury-crunch at DB waiver move and Kumerow went down, we were hauling Brown and Beas off the sofa (our WR equivalent of bringing in Klein).
So yes, I agree with you that last year's bottom-of-roster WR and Cephus are competing for #5 and possibly #6 on the roster, but the quality of those guys can really make or break a season - just like the quality of the LB at the bottom of the depth chart.
And I'd really like an upgrade there. I'd like to see Shakir-Coleman-Samuel-better receiver-Hollins-better receiver, albeit it's possible we only keep 5 WR on the roster and more TE depending upon what kind of offense Brady wants to run, in which case yeah, #6 is gonna have to be a guy we can keep on the practice squad.
But we still need one more guy, and not persuaded Quintez Cephus is The One rather than a chap competing for #6 with the rest of them.
I'm also not persuaded that Beane sees it that way, in which case Shades of 2019
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:
I will always go on record as saying it was imperative to double dip in last week's wr rich draft. We won't see that deep of a wr draft for awhile. And all of this is amplified by losing Diggs/Davis. We had realistic bites at the apple with Thomas, Mitchell, Leggette, McConkey, Franklin & Walker. I'll give Keon the benefit of the doubt and completely ignore his 40. I've been told by half this board that 40 times are irrelevant. But we still needed that 2nd rookie wr. If for no other reason as insurance if Hollins, Hamler, Shorter, Shavers, Cephus flame out. We all saw how useless Sherfield and Harty were last season.
I'm on record as agreeing that we did not do enough at WR.
I'm a little puzzled as how you see us having a realistic bite at Thomas, who was drafted at 23? We'd have had to go up at least 6 slots - would Philly have been willing? Detroit took a DB at 24 and Baltimore at 30 (so might have hopped up). Then there's the cost - in Beane's 2 recent 1st round trades, it cost him a 4th rounder to move up 2 spots. So what would we have had to pay for 6? The trade value chart suggests maybe a 3rd round pick - we didn't have a 3rd round pick. Our 2nd round pick, and maybe get a late 3rd or early 4th as change? I don't know if that's realistic.
And of course, there's the question of whether Thomas juice would have been worth that squeeze - sometimes when there are 2 or 3 really strong prospects, the 4th choice gets a bit of a "halo effect" bump-up (Kadarius Toney or Jameson Williams, anyone?)
The bottom line is, the Bills didn't have Mitchell or Franklin high on their board, or maybe on their board at all. We could have taken Leggette or McConkey sure, but that's instead of Coleman, not a double dip - and if we'd gone up for Thomas, we would have had probably no 2nd round pick so we're still not double dipping.
So who is our realistic double, that was apparently on our board? Tez Walker we could have had - but not if we stayed pat in the 1st or traded up, because we wouldn't have had our 3rd rounder. It's possible Beane tried to trade up in the 4th using some 5th round picks, and possible the reportedly "thin" draft left other GMs disinclined to trade.
And are we really persuaded, the 4th round talent in this draft is so very much better than last year, or next year?
I think there were guys Beane could have drafted in the later rounds, but I think it's a reasonable question if the late round talent was truly significantly better than previous years?
I understand your points, but at the same time it somewhat seems to me more like a different way of saying "Beane didn't trade up the way we wanted, or draft the guys we thought he should draft" vs. mapping out a path where Beane could realistically have traded up or kept our 1st round pick to draft one of those guys, AND made a double-dip that was early enough to be part of the clearly superior part of the WR talent.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, BuffaloBillyG said:
The main place where I'll zig where your zag is with the bolded. It seems just going off the top of my head I've heard...I'll say 3 out of the last 5 years that the "WR class is special this year. We may not see one like this for a long long time" and then wash/rinse/repeat a year or two later.
It really does seem the college game is producing NFL caliber WRs at a pretty good clip.
I agree with questioning the concept that this WR class is a WR draft to end all drafts. Two parts to that: 1) are the WR really all that and a bag of chips at the NFL level? Experience suggests "maybe not" 2) is the class talent really something that won't be seen for years?
Example: 2018 was said to be one of the most talented QB classes in years. 5 QB were drafted in the 1st round. 2 were offered 2nd contracts, with a 3rd who has shown some ability to play. 2020, which seemed to have less fanfare, had 4 QB drafted in the 1st round and 1 in the second - of whom all 5 are still starting in the league and have shown the ability to play well, 2 having played in (and lost) the Superbowl.
Anyway, 2020 was a great year for WR with 6 drafted in the 1st, 2 more at the start of the 2nd; of those 7, the 1st and the 4th drafted didn't work out and the 2nd is only OK, maybe hampered by his QB. 2021 saw 5 drafted in the 1st, top 3 look great (drafted 5,6, and 10 overall) but so does some guy drafted midway thru the 4th. 2022 saw 6 drafted in the 1st plus another at the top of the 2nd. Top 3 look great, but so does some guy drafted at #52, halfway through the 2nd.
It just seems as though pretty deep talented WR drafts are coming along pretty regularly, and that drafts where one position is super-hyped may not wind up producing the expected number of successful NFL players.
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Cash said:
Good call bringing up MLB. I was among the many who were shocked all offseason that they weren't adding more... then it turned out Bernard was really good, and I think the Bills knew it was a matter of when, not if for Bernard.
Any chance we've got one of those in the WR room already?
- Mack Hollins - No way. He might be a nice addition in terms of attitude, etc, and maybe he can show the young guys the right way to work, but if he was gonna be a thing, it would've happened before he got here.
- Andy Isabella - Let's be real, people. Isabella is very fast, and he's the same size/skin color as a lot of our fans, and it's always fun to root for someone who looks like you. But he can't change direction at an NFL level - he can't run routes, can't return kicks, can't make anyone miss. He's had plenty of chances and there is no breakout coming.
- Justin Shorter - I'll believe it when I see it, and not a second sooner. When the #1 selling point of an NFL player is his recruiting rank out of high school, I tune out. (This is also why I was never sold on Trevor Lawrence as a "generational" QB prospect - I never once saw an argument for him as generational that didn't prominently feature his recruiting rank from 3 years prior. Who cares???) The track record for "top HS recruit who doesn't do much in college" is pretty weak IMO. Robert Foster had a few nice games when we were beyond desperate, but ultimately was not an NFL receiver.
- Tyrell Shavers - On their last podcast, Matt Parrino and Ryan Talbot noted that Beane mentioned Shavers before Shorter when talking about how they like the guys in the room. And IIRC, Beane also made a point of saying Shavers has been in the building almost every day in the offseason. This is a longshot, but it's not completely crazy. Like with Shorter, I'll believe it when I see it, but there is some precedent for super hard-working undrafted WR to develop into a legit player. And depending on what Shavers is doing in the building every day, it's possible the coaching staff knows that they've got something there.
- KJ Hamler - Beane talked him up a bit in his last presser as well. I think it's about 95% chance that he's just a bust a la Andy Isabella. But given Hamler's injuries, there's a chance he could still turn it around. Again, I'll believe it when I see it.
- Quintez Cephus - including him even though he wasn't "in the room" yet during Beane's press conference, but he's the guy Beane said they were about to sign. Even before the gambling suspension, he wasn't anything special. I wouldn't be shocked if he makes the team as backup X receiver or something, but I would be extremely shocked if he broke out.
Of these guys, I'd say Shavers and Hamler are the only ones with a realistic chance of a Bernard-like season in 2024, with maybe an outside outside shot for Shorter. Of course, we don't have the info we need to make a real guess, but hopefully the coaching staff has a better idea based on seeing guys work in the offseason.
Good post.
The bottom line is Beane has a mixed track record with the out come of these kind of statements (or with just putting players who have been in a secondary role, into the lineup). He made comments about Cody Ford being hampered by injuries and "his best football is ahead of him"; next training camp, Ford was traded away. Nothing was said, but obviously Davis and McKenzie were expected to step up at WR in 2022; that didn't work out very well. In contrast, MLB worked out splendidly and there have been some other instances - I think Beane expressing confidence in Damar after Hyde went down, and Damar played decently enough "until".
FWIW, I started a thread on this after Beane made a comment about "sometimes the answer is already on the roster" with a reference to last year's MLB situation.
Basically my conclusion is pretty much the same as yours, except I included Bryan Thompson, an UDFA last season who quietly spent last season on the PS, just as Shavers did.
I do think KJ Hamler has a better set of physical tools to start with than Isabella did - longer arms, bigger hands, similar size and speed - but I think the real Achilles heel for both of them is lack of ball-tracking skills and hands. And when a guy has been injured as repeatedly in different body parts (hammy, ACL, pec, pericarditis), you kind of got to wonder if his body is just not made to hold up to football.
I think it's notable that of the Isabella/Shorter/Shavers/Thompson pack, Isabella is the only one who got the call and spent time on the active roster last season.As far as Coleman mentioning Hamler, Hamler attended IMG for HS and trained at EXOS pre-draft - so perhaps they encountered each other training in Florida?
-
1
-
46 minutes ago, Virgil said:
Not a surprise
-
6 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:
that doesn't really make me feel better considering last season they were counting on Sherfield and Harty
i mean at this point it honestly feels like we do this w the WR room every offseason
Well....we had a solid WR room in 2020 and made reasonable changes in 2021, but since then, you're not wrong. Last two seasons, we have counted on WR to step it up who didn't or couldn't.
I don't feel good about our WR room at all, myself. But the huge unknown (to me anyway) is just what DOES Joe Brady want our offense to look like? Because judging by personnel, he clearly has something different in mind than Daboll did or Dorsey did. -
16 minutes ago, H2o said:
Half the time Simms and Esiason just took shots at each other. Now they can go argue in Hardee's every Friday morning for breakfast if they want to continue the tradition.
Wouldn't they want to try Waffle House? They serve pork chops at Waffle House, did you know that?
-
1
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, Sweats said:
Yeah, i never understood that......they are beyond terrible.
I think they must appeal to a certain demographic, by which I mean the guys who grew up watching Bradshaw as a QB and admiring Jimmy Johnson as a coach.
Fox wants to stick with that demographic, while CBS wants to update from Phil Simms and Boomer Esiason.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, MrEpsYtown said:
Very well-thought-out out post. I appreciate the time it took. A few of my thoughts...
I think there were a couple of things at work here with the leadership guys. With the team in "transition," I think they needed a culture change. It seemed like things had gotten a bit rotten, and stale, and the Diggs stuff felt like a cancer spreading through the team. This is a culture/leadership reset to go along with the cap reset.
I agree with this. I think it is obvious that in Diggs, at the least, we had a guy who wanted to win a Superbowl and felt entitled to point fingers everywhere but at the guy he sees in the mirror for the causes the Bills have fallen short 3 years running. There have been a number of vets who I believe, signed with the Bills because they wanted a ring and thought they could ride the Bills to get there. After a couple of seasons, that stales. Vet leadership who from all appearances have great attitudes like Poyer and Hyde, had gotten old and the Bills needed to cut the cord and move on. So a "culture reset" is needed.
It's not that we expect a 3rd round DLman to step up and become a leader in the DL room. That's expected of Da'Quan Jones and Ed Oliver. We're not expecting Bishop to necessarily be the DB "field general" his rookie year, that's expected of Edwards. But we're bringing in guys who have that sense of personal responsibility and ability to lead, as our "leaders in training" during this reset.
2 hours ago, MrEpsYtown said:While it is true that a lot of this draft is singles and doubles, the Coleman pick is the ultimate swing for the fences pick. This is like the Josh Allen of receivers in some ways. He is unconventional and has holes in his game that can be fixed. He is young and if it hits it is massive, massive upside. A guy who is shifty enough to return punts at 6-3, 215 and to be a D1 big time basketball recruit who can't run good routes? That screams to me a kid who has not been coached enough. Clearly, he has the potential to put that together. He just has to learn how to run routes without the ball the way he runs and moves with the ball in his hands. All that time spent on basketball and AAU stuff probably hurt his football development some. Huge potential is there, but it is risky. You have to trust your development system.
To me, Coleman 100% fits Beane's draft profile for the first rounds. Drafting in the bottom of the 1st, he likes to take a high ceiling/low floor prospect. That's his Jam. I think this was true of Allen, true of Tre'maine Edmunds, true of Rousseau with his minimal collage experience, true of Elam, and true of Coleman. (I could make an argument it was true of Kincaid, as well).
The downside is that sometimes these guys take a year or two to start contributing according to their potential. So it's especially a risk when we've moved out of the 1st so we don't have that cost-controlled 5th year on Coleman. We just have to hope that Coleman follows the Edmunds and Kincaid trajectory where he's an immediate starter and contributor even if he doesn't hit his full potential for a season or two, and not the Rousseau or (shudder) Elam trajectory. Whether or not, clearly Beane thought that risk was manageable in favor of moving up in the 5th
McDermott said something once about the position coaches not liking to start rookies because it's more work for them to get the rookies prepared and ready to go; it's more comfortable to start a vet who knows his assignments and correctly interprets what he sees (this was 2020, talking about Ed Oliver, I believe). We've had some "churn" at the coaching assistants, and IMO part of that churn is seeking to move towards guys who are more willing to coach up the younger players and ride with them earlier in the season, in the hopes that they'll have had their growing pains and be ready to ride at the end. I can see both perspectives, but there's a point that if you ride with a vet who is in some ways a "better" player earlier in the season AND more likely to not make it through a full season, you then take a double-hit when you bring in a rookie. If you ride with a rookie and make up your mind to tolerate and correct some rookie mistakes, they're hopefully a better player by the last 3rd of the season AND if they're injured, the vet will be more able to come in with less learning curve.
2 hours ago, MrEpsYtown said:Should they have double-dipped with another WR? Maybe. But if the value wasn’t there for them I get it. In hindsight they must really like what Hamler, Shorter, Shavers etc bring to the table. Hamler is the sleeper here imo. He's still younger than a bunch of the guys who got drafted. Whether we agree with it or not, we don’t know what these guys are doing in the background.
Yeah, I think people are getting it a bit mixed. They're wanting 2 WR because they wanted Coleman and, say, McConkey or maybe Legette and Coleman. Well, that was Either Or Not Both, so then folks are just salty that the Bills talent evaluation and theirs differ. People are mad that the Bills picked Coleman instead of Worthy, Pearsall, Legette, or McConkey. That's just one where time will tell; Beane has shown himself way smarter than a TBD draft afficionado at times. Other times he's shown himself "out" vs the guys TBD would have picked. There are some wild cards at play such as injuries - would Cody Ford have succeeded as a 2nd round pick if he hadn't been injured so much and tried so hard to play through it? Can't use a time machine to find out.
Clearly the Bills could have taken Franklin instead of Carter at the bottom of the 3rd, but also clearly, he's a guy where 32 talent evaluators around the league differed significantly from the pundits who graded him as a top-10 WR and a 2nd round or top 50 player. The Bills seemed to want no part of him or of Mitchell.
So then what we're talking about is whether there was a guy within reach from the 4th round on with whom we should have double-dipped. We're not talking "the Bills didn't take BTJ and Legette or Worthy. We're talking the Bills didn't take one of the guys in reach at the bottom of the 1st/top of the 2nd AND a guy in the late rounds, and while yes, this draft's WR quality is good, that doesn't mean that the guys drafted in the 5th are automagically better than the guys we drafted or signed last season. That's the bottom line: whether they're right or wrong, the Bills like someone in the Shorter/Shavers/Hamler/Thompson/Isabella group and feel they have a better shot to contribute this season, better than they like Anthony Gould, Ainais Smith, or Jamari Thrash.
I will admit Beane pisses me off at times when he talks as though the only way the Bills could have gotten a top WR like Ja'Marr Chase is to "suck that bad", when plainly, there were guys within reach of our original draft slot who have proven to be top WR.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 4/27/2024 at 6:28 PM, Roundybout said:
I guess my thing is that Josh’s most successful season (2020) was with Cole Beasley playing at his best. We had the chance to duplicate that with McConkey and we didn’t do it.
I think the Bills feel the Cole Beasley role may be over-represented on the current roster with Khalil Shakir and the FA acquisition of Curtis Samuel (not that these guys are playing at Cole's level at present, but then, likely neither would McConkey)
It's also notable that one reason Beasley and Josh had that success in 2020 was that Brown was a vertical threat and Diggs fast enough to also stretch the field.
The weakness of that group, was guys who were strong enough to out-play physical coverage and to challenge for 50-50 balls.
11 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:I think Buffalo might be trying to prioritize being a more physical team, especially come playoff time. The recent playoff losses have been as much to do with an inability to control the LOS on either side of the ball as much as anything else. You want to stick to our pass catchers and hold? Well we now have multiple ways to counter and create YAC on shorter passes - either with size (knox, kincaid, coleman), pass catching backs (cook and davis), and quickness (Shakir, Samuel).
I think this is it. In our most recent playoff losses, our WR have 100% been out-physicaled by "sticky" coverage. I think the Bills are trying to become a more physical, powerful team offensively. Whether they've got the right guys for that, time will tell but I can't fault the logic that it's insanity to try the same thing and expect different results, therefore the Bills are going for some different qualities in their player personnel.
Aside, but what's super-frustrating to me is after the Zebras allowed KC to hold and shove and mug our WR all game in the AFCCG, the Superbowl crew of Zebras flagged the hell out of KC's secondary for the same behavior, helping Tampa to the win.
-
6 hours ago, JGMcD2 said:
Explaining in a little more detail where my mind was when I said that...
We carried 9 OL on the 53 last year:
- Dawkins, Dion
- Brown, Spencer
- Torrence, O'Cyrus
- McGovern, Connor
-
Morse, Mitch -
Bates, Ryan - Edwards, David
- Anderson, Alec
- Van Demark, Ryan
This year 7/9 OL are returning:
Locks (5)
- Dawkins, Dion
- Brown, Spencer
- Torrence, O'Cyrus
- McGovern, Connor
- Edwards, David
This is our presumed starting 5 OL. The only thing that could change is McGovern moving back to LG and Edwards moving back to a reserve role.
High Probability to Make Roster (2)
- Van Demark, Ryan
- Anderson, Alec
These guys are REALLY close to being locks in my opinion.
The Bills signed Alec Anderson as an UDFA, and he spent all of 2022 on the practice squad and the entire 2023 season on the 53. Van Demark was a Colts UDFA in 2022 but like Anderson spent 2022 on our practice squad and all of 2023 on our 53.
The Bills have invested a lot of time/resources into developing both players and I think they clearly have a leg up on the competition.
New Veterans (3)
- Collins, La'el
- Clapp, Will
- Doyle, Tommy*
Collins has some guarantees, but I don't think he's a guarantee to make the roster, although that likely gives him a leg up. I don't think Clapp has a chance to make the roster unless there is an injury at the C position. Tommy Doyle fits here because he's coming off injury, but made the roster in 2021 and 2022, likely would've made it in 2023 before a season ending injury - he's fighting an uphill battle.
Drafted Rookies (3)
- Van Pran-Granger, Sedrick
- Grable, Tylan
- Clayton, Travis
The way Beane spoke about Clayton after the draft, it seems like they've banking on him being the 17th guy on the Practice Squad. My gut tells me that Van Pran-Granger is nearly a lock for the reserve C role (I think this is possible with McGovern and Edwards being able to play G) and pundits seem to think he could end up starting for us this year. Grable is competing for a reserve T role with the likes of Collins, Doyle and Van Demark, if not he's likely another hopeful Practice Squad stash for Beane.
After walking through it I feel pretty comfortable saying we can predict who 8/9 lineman will be on the 53.
- Dawkins, Dion
- Brown, Spencer
- Torrence, O'Cyrus
- McGovern, Connor
- Edwards, David
- Anderson, Alec
- Van Demark, Ryan
- Van Pran-Granger, Sedrick
That leaves Collins, Clapp, Doyle, Grable, Clayton, Edwards, Britton and Bills competing for 1 spot.
Jordan Schultz suggested that Keaton Bills *SHOULD* make this team. I just think that it's going to be an uphill battle for any of the UDFA to break camp on the 53.
OK, that's a careful and fair breakdown. I think you missed Richard Gouraige, whom the Bills carried on the practice squad all season and signed to a futures contract at OT, that's a nit. I also can't argue that it's an uphill battle for an UDFA to break camp on the 53, because it's
I think there are 2 places where I differ. First, I don't view David Edwards position at LG as "locked in", nor do I view Connor McGovern as "locked in" at C.
In fact, I'm highly nervous about the Connor McGovern Experiment at C. I think he had something like 13 games at C as a college sophomore, and maybe 1 start at C in the NFL? Doesn't mean he can't play C, but he's highly inexperienced and his track record is coaches who see him play C go "Next!". McGovern is a bit shorter, maybe 15 lbs heavier than Morse, came into the league with a rep as a strong run blocker, more uneven in pass pro. I think we saw that at times last season. I think he's got the inside track, but is far from a lock. It wouldn't bother me to keep 3 other guys who can play C on the roster.
I have different trepidation about David Edwards as a starter. He can play, but he's also got a very nervous-making concussion history, such that the Rams moved on from him after he started 45 games with them. If an OLman is "all that", teams usually stick with them for years but the Rams let him go. That suggests to me either 1) they viewed him as a player they could and should upgrade on skill OR 2) they saw his concussion as particularly worrisome. Or Both. I agree he has an "inside track" because OL coaches tend to favor "their guys" who can player/coach their technique (one reason Bills nabbed him from LA), but we're in year 3 now with Kromer. The starters now should be "his guys".
In the past, the Bills have also valued IOL backups who can play across, sometimes at the expense of a guy who has potential to be significantly better at one position (see Teller, Wyatt vs Bates, Ryan). Edwards did play RG his rookie season, but never C AFAIK.
Of course, there are a lot of relevant details here neither of us have access to, I'm just laying out why I view both McGovern as subject to being moved back to LG, and Edwards as being susceptible to upgrade.
I don't know how the Bills feel about Alec Anderson - they obviously felt he was better than the guys they released. But while they carried him all year, he didn't make it onto the roster for one tiny snap, not on ST, not as a 6th OL. Of course we were very lucky with our OL health last season, but I don't see him being as much of a "sure bet" as you do.
Likewise, while the Bills clearly liked Van Demark better than the guys they released to make room for him, the Bills historically favor a swing tackle as their backup OT and I recall some chatter that Van Demark was not "getting it" at RT.
The major reason why I feel the OL may not be quite as "locked in" as you see it has to do with scheme. What exactly does Joe Brady want this offense to be? I don't know, do you? Last year, we went into the season with Dorsey as OC and with an "athletic" type center who excels in a pin-and-pull style run game, and presumably a portfolio of run plays suited to our OL personnel. But with Joe Brady now locked down as OC, I believe there are signs we want to move towards a more power-focused run game. One of them being to release Morse and go with Connor McGovern as the presumptive C. McGovern is a bit shorter, maybe 15 lbs heavier, and came into the league with a rep as a strong run blocker, more uneven in pass pro. I think we saw that at times last season. Will he do better in pass sets as a C vs LG? Not enough NFL experience at C to tell.
What exactly does Joe Brady want our offense to look like? In the games where he was OC, we had a huge shift in our Run/Pass balance. We were 58% pass/42% run under Dorsey and 48% pass/52% run under Brady. The big question: Why? Was it because between Allen's shoulder sprain and whatever was up with Diggs, we didn't have the horses to carry off the pass game he wanted so he did what it took to win? Was it because, despite having a certified Beast of a passing QB under C, McDermott really wants a run first offense in his heart of hearts? If we know what Brady wants the offense to look like, then we can make a guess about whether the 4 returning guys plus Edwards really have a sweet lock on the starts and whether Anderson and Van Demark really have a strong leg up on the backup roles.-
1
-
3 hours ago, The Jokeman said:
Bates came over from the Eagles actually.
And Van Demark was actually initially signed by the Colts - but both came over to the Bills prior to their rookie year
That's why I count them as UDFA who made the roster; you can count differently, no worries
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:
People have been talking about our lack of investment in wr for several years now
The plan would have been a meaningful draft and FA strategy starting exactly when it became apparent Allen was the guy
What would that look like to you?
-
6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:
And I definitely have not argued the Bills receiving corps is acceptable. I have been arguing for the last two years it wasn't when we had Diggs and Gabe. It definitely isn't now when it is Curtis Samuel and a rookie.
I don't disagree with this assessment.
What I ponder is: what exactly were the Bills supposed to do about it, given where they started the offseason?
As you point out, even with some resources expended on lower-tier FA signings, a late 2nd round and a late 3rd round draft pick, it's possible our D won't be as good this season. So were we supposed to use no resources on it, 100% on offense, and have the D just totally blow? That's not likely a recipe for playoffs or playoff success either.
More, we all know even a top of the 1st round pick has only about a 40-50% hit rate. So if we mortgage the rest of this year's draft class and next year's to get there, what alternatives does that leave us?
That's really what I want to hear from people on Team Unacceptable WR Room: what would be their plan to fix it?
It really comes down to Brady
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
Oh, great, we now have the next useless metric to go along with the QB 300 yd passing game (remember when Allen sucked after we went to the playoffs in 2019 because he hadn't had one)?
Stefon Diggs didn't have a 1000 yd season until his 4th season in Minny. He was still a good, proven player after his rookie year, even though he only had 720 yds or 849 yds.
Cole Beasley in his 11 year NFL career had 0 1000 yd receiving seasons
Now I might understand what you might be getting at. We want to see Curtis Samuel surpass his previous 851 yd best season, and not have the 650-ish he had the last 2 years. We want to see Shakir surpass the 39 receptions and 611 yds he had last year. We need Kincaid to surpass his 73 reception, 673 yd rookie year. We need production from Coleman in his rookie year. And while we're at it, would be nice if Knox would return to his 50-ish receptions for 500-ish yards of '21 and '22 instead of the <200 yds we got from him last year. We need Cook to keep up his contributions of 400-ish yards or step up a bit.
'Cuz if we get 600 yds from Coleman and 2023-ish production from everyone else, we're gonna be looking at a ~3,100 yd passing year.
On the other hand, if Coleman manages 600 yds and the rest somehow manage an extra 900 yds between the 5 of them (like 180 yds apiece) then we'll be good.