Anyone concerned about the wr talent?

[OldTimer1960]

I know that both Mathews and Benjamin have been injured.  I have a difficult time believing that someone that has been as productive as Mathews over multiple seasons can’t be a big piece of the offensive puzzle.  Benjamin has been hurt almost since he arrived, but also has been highly productive in the league.  As an aside, Charles Clay was highly productive in the league before arriving here as well.

 

i can’t escape the conclusion that between injuries and subpar QB play, we haven’t seen the potential of Mathews and Benjamin.  Still, with Mathews’ contract expiring, not sure I could commit big money to him. 

 

I think the long-term play is to keep Benjamin and Zay Jones and add a player with some speed.

 

if you disagree, have a look at what Marquis Goodwin and Robert Woods are doing this season.  They were limited by injuries here for sure, but perhaps the QB play here limited them more...

[Kirby Jackson]

29 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Who do you really think we need to add though?

 

Give a player comp.  Deonte is in the speed role.  KB is our big body #1.  Zay can be in the slot and the boundary.  Holmes as a #4 filling in for KB. Don't forget we still have Clay and O'Leary to work in.

 

What round do you think we need to look for WR?  3 and 4 maybe? 

 

We have varying degrees of good and solid WR's but no one great.  McD isn't gonna turn around and spend a high pick on a WR after trading Sammy, and I don't think FA is going to warrant the kind of player you're looking for. Looking over the list of UFA's, no one jumps at me.

I’d say that we need a 1/2 that can get down the field. Bandit brought up Richardson and he makes a ton of sense. Mike Wallace or Allen Robinson would make sense. In the draft I like Parris Campbell as a realistic target in the 2nd/3rd. If you are looking for a potential trade target maybe Sterling Sheppard? I’d think that if the Bills are set on dealing Glenn that could be an option.

 

I also think that Clay should remain on the team. He’s a really good football player.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[BringBackOrton]

46 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I’d say that we need a 1/2 that can get down the field. Bandit brought up Richardson and he makes a ton of sense. Mike Wallace or Allen Robinson would make sense. In the draft I like Parris Campbell as a realistic target in the 2nd/3rd. If you are looking for a potential trade target maybe Sterling Sheppard? I’d think that if the Bills are set on dealing Glenn that could be an option.

 

I also think that Clay should remain on the team. He’s a really good football player.

Think he's still fully guaranteed so no worries on that front. 

 

However, I do have a topic here from an esteemed poster who kinda sorta disagrees.

 

 

[Billzgobowlin]

18 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

He was their #4 and heading to FA. I’d expect him to still get $6M+ (Woods got like $8M). I wouldn’t do it.

So you believe that this group is good enough? That’s where we disagree.

I am curious if you were good with last years group?  Is Watkins/Woods/Goodwin > Benjamin/Matthews/Zay ?  I think either would do in the NFL.  

[Kirby Jackson]

6 minutes ago, Billzgobowlin said:

I am curious if you were good with last years group?  Is Watkins/Woods/Goodwin > Benjamin/Matthews/Zay ?  I think either would do in the NFL.  

I liked last year’s group a lot more than this group. I liked Goodwin more than most but Woods a little less than most. Watkins produces like an elite number 1 whenever he is targeted like that. I was fine letting Woods and Goodwin go for that price and assumed Zay would adapt better than he has. I think Benjamin is pretty good and Matthews is a JAG. They don’t have anyone (besides Thompson who is decent) to keep the safeties at home. The running game has suffered this year because of it. 

 

Last years group I would have as a middle of the pack group and this year would be bottom 5 (and lower before the Benjamin trade). McCoy and Clay are good receivers so they take some pressure off of the wideouts but the WRs aren’t good. 

 

The Bears, Jets, Panthers, Ravens and 49ers are the other teams that I would have near the bottom with the Bills.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[John from Riverside]

I am glad to see Reilly get a chance with this group this year.

 

If he ends up being a Chris Hogan type player then i feel much better about the WR core going into next season......Benjamin is a legit 1......Zay Jones is coming along.....D. Thompson provides speed....and then you would have Reilly.

 

We could then look to the middle rounds for a complimentary speed receiver.

[Alphadawg7]

If we don't trade Sammy we would likely be 8-4 right now and might be 9-3.  

 

We win the Panther and Bengal game with Sammy on this team, I firmly believe that.  And with those wins, there is no way Peterception in San Diego fiasco happens as he wouldn't have played and that is a game we could have potentially won.  

 

So yes, WR is a concern for me especially since our #1 WR is supposed to be Kelvin but he can't stop getting knee injuries and is way less durable than Sammy ever was.  And our #2 WR should be ZJ, but he still struggles with routes and catching.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Alphadawg7

[kota]

Trade everything for a QB of the future.  Until the bills do that we will continue to not be any good.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

If we don't trade Sammy we would likely be 8-4 right now and might be 9-3.  

 

We win the Panther and Bengal game with Sammy on this team, I firmly believe that.  And with those wins, there is no way Peterception in San Diego fiasco happens as he wouldn't have played and that is a game we could have potentially won.  

 

So yes, WR is a concern for me especially since our #1 WR is supposed to be Kelvin but he can't stop getting knee injuries and is way less durable than Sammy ever was.  And our #2 WR should be ZJ, but he still struggles with routes and catching.

 

Sammy was healthy in the 15 game in KC and after a monster half TT forgot about him and we lost

Sammy was healthy in the 16 game in OAK and after a monster half TT forgot about him and we lost

 

imo  He was more of a crutch to TT than anything else.  

[simool]

This is a lot like saying "anyone worried about the big toe?" when your leg is about to be amputated.

[Kirby Jackson]

29 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

Sammy was healthy in the 15 game in KC and after a monster half TT forgot about him and we lost

Sammy was healthy in the 16 game in OAK and after a monster half TT forgot about him and we lost

 

imo  He was more of a crutch to TT than anything else.  

He was (and is) exactly like any other elite WR when targeted. Bandit did the numbers earlier in the thread. For some reason Sammy doesn’t get targeted like Brown or Julio but produces at a similar level on a per target basis. I have no idea why he doesn’t get 10 targets a game.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

27 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

He was (and is) exactly like any other elite WR when targeted. Bandit did the numbers earlier in the thread. For some reason Sammy doesn’t get targeted like Brown or Julio but produces at a similar level on a per target basis. I have no idea why he doesn’t get 10 targets a game.

I am far from an expert nor do I pretend to know the game .

 

imo   You have success by spreading the ball around to each and every game throughout the  entire game.  You don't go to player A and pass until they stop him twice then repeat the same for player B and so on.   

 

 he doesn’t get 10 targets a game

Sammy?  in Buff or LA?

 

I can tell you why not in Buffalo.  Rams?  no clue I don't watch them play

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

If we don't trade Sammy we would likely be 8-4 right now and might be 9-3.  

 

That's just patent nonsense. Sammy doesn't win us 2 or 3 games merely by his presence.

 

[Kirby Jackson]

10 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I am far from an expert nor do I pretend to know the game .

 

imo   You have success by spreading the ball around to each and every game throughout the  entire game.  You don't go to player A and pass until they stop him twice then repeat the same for player B and so on.   

 

 he doesn’t get 10 targets a game

Sammy?  in Buff or LA?

 

I can tell you why not in Buffalo.  Rams?  no clue I don't watch them play

 

It’s the same. Why isn’t he targeted 10 times a game? He produces like the best receivers in the league when he is targeted as often as them. It’s a mystery.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

23 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

It’s the same. Why isn’t he targeted 10 times a game? He produces like the best receivers in the league when he is targeted as often as them. It’s a mystery.

That's because you don't -really- know what he's like in practice, in the locker room, and in dealing with QB. But there's something there.

 

[Kirby Jackson]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

That's because you don't -really- know what he's like in practice, in the locker room, and in dealing with QB. But there's something there.

 

The sample size is large enough though that anyone with common sense would say “let’s try to get him the ball as often as the top receivers on the league.” Evans, Beckham, Brown, Julio, etc... all get targeted 10+ times a game (in that neighborhood anyways). Watkins doesn’t despite the fact that he produces on a similar level on a per target basis. 

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

Sammy was healthy in the 15 game in KC and after a monster half TT forgot about him and we lost

Sammy was healthy in the 16 game in OAK and after a monster half TT forgot about him and we lost

 

imo  He was more of a crutch to TT than anything else.  

 

None of that though factor directly into the 2 games I referenced we likely win with Sammy.  So you can pick what ever other games you want, but based on the actual games I mentioned, there is no denying better play at WR would have helped us win those games and Sammy would have been 10 folds better than anyone we rolled out those games.

39 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

That's just patent nonsense. Sammy doesn't win us 2 or 3 games merely by his presence.

 

 

Its nonsense because you didn't actually read what I wrote.  I didn't say a blanket BS statement of just 2 or 3 wins.  I specifically stated 2 exact LOSSES that I believe we would have won had we had Sammy.  That was Car...where we lost on the last play of the game due to a sloppy stumbling route by ZJ on what should have been a walk in TD.  Sammy 100% runs that route properly and walks in for a TD in that scenario.  Bengals game too, costly mistakes by WR's hurt and Sammy IMO would have been the difference in winning that game.  

 

The 3rd was SD game, and it was less to do with Sammy and more to do with the fact that Peterman never starts that game if we win just one more game prior to that.  And if TT starts that game, that game is winnable...doesnt mean we do win, but sure as hell more winnable than a rookie throwing 5 INTs in one half.  

 

So you can say whatever you want, but there is no denying no matter what you say that Car and Bengal games are likely won with better play from the WR's.  So I stand by my 8-4 statement had we NOT traded Sammy.  

Edited December 7, 2017 by Alphadawg7

[BADOLBILZ]

32 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

That's just patent nonsense. Sammy doesn't win us 2 or 3 games merely by his presence.

 

 

Mere presence?  Those first two games came down to a couple of plays not made.   Bills simply couldn't make big plays in the passing game this year.  Taylor didn't get worse.   McCoy might have lost a step but he's not the kind of RB who should be averaging less than league average ypc as he is now.    Losing Watkins has made everyone associated with the offense worse.  And yes, they could have beaten the almighty Chargers despite what you Peterphiles think.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Mere presence?  Those first two games came down to a couple of plays not made.   Bills simply couldn't make big plays in the passing game this year.  Taylor didn't get worse.   McCoy might have lost a step but he's not the kind of RB who should be averaging less than league average ypc as he is now.    Losing Watkins has made everyone associated with the offense worse.  And yes, they could have beaten the almighty Chargers despite what you Peterphiles think.

 

 

 

Riiiiight.

 

And I'm not a peterman-phile. I'm an "anyone-but-tyrod-phile."

 

[GoBills808]

12 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

The sample size is large enough though that anyone with common sense would say “let’s try to get him the ball as often as the top receivers on the league.” Evans, Beckham, Brown, Julio, etc... all get targeted 10+ times a game (in that neighborhood anyways). Watkins doesn’t despite the fact that he produces on a similar level on a per target basis. 

That's assuming that production is linear to targets, and I think that's a questionable premise. It's the same argument (sorry to derail slightly) that says Taylor should be throwing a bunch of passes/game because he's so efficient...there are a lot of examples of guys who can perform well in certain limited situations and with limited usage. Recently I think K. Williams (small sample, I know) was shown to be significantly less effective shouldering the load when McCoy went down than when he was used as a change of pace guy with limited reps. 

 

As far as Watkins goes, he certainly COULD be able to produce at the rate he's capable of with more targets, but increasing his targets doesn't necessarily mean his production will be comparable with his stats at lower usage. There's a give and take for all but the best guys who you've listed above...and tbh Evans is struggling this year to reproduce his last season while still seeing a lot of passes thrown his way. I don't think you can just look at an efficient guy and presuppose an increase in usage is going to generate an equivalent increase in productivity.