Don't expect a "true WR1" to end up in Buffalo for this year...

[blacklabel]

I think I've mentioned this in some other threads but it all gets lost in the shuffle.

 

Seems almost every other day we have new threads about how badly the Bills need a number one wide receiver. I'm not saying I disagree, they certainly need some playmakers added to the receiver room, however...

 

I wouldn't hold my breath that they acquire a big-time pass catcher.

 

There are a few reasons, mostly everyone already knows the first two: there's not much in free agency and while there are a handful of receivers in the draft who *could* develop into a number one guy,  there aren't any prospects that are ready to assume that role right from the start. A trade can always happen but I doubt Beane is willing to give up too much at this point, especially after he got the short end of the stick on the KB deal.

 

But the other reason, probably the most important reason we won't see them add a guy like that is because Brian Daboll is their OC. That's not a negative comment, by the way. Daboll spent a long time in New England where Tom Brady only had a "true WR1" like, once, and that was Randy Moss. Other than that, Brady has been throwing to an assorted collection of receivers, backs and tight ends for his entire career. They always have a stable of versatile running backs that can make plays coming out of the backfield. They've usually always rolled with at least one monster a TE (Gronk) and have in past seasons added another monster TE that would be a #1 anywhere else (Martellus Bennett), and slot guys like Edelman and Welker have been their leading receivers more than a few times. Belichick has always put a lot of value in versatility. It's the reason the Pats offense is always able to morph back and forth from a pass-heavy attack to a run-heavy attack or something more balanced. Whatever defense they face, they tailor their offense to exploit weaknesses in that defense. Some teams have their schemes and it's "our guys can beat your guys" and that's that, but more and more you're seeing teams that want to have more than just one offensive identity.

 

Daboll is cut from that same cloth. He's said it since day one, that his offense would be a multi-faceted unit capable of switching gears based upon their opponent. And McDermott, like Belichick, is another coach who values versatility. 

 

I'm not saying that they'll never have an established go-to receiver, but I don't expect it in 2019 just given the circumstances. Really, I'd expect them to add pieces to every offensive skill group; backs, receivers and tight ends. Again, Daboll worked with Gronk, and then you have McBeane who are following the formula they used in Carolina where they had Greg Olsen. On the bright side, while the draft isn't very deep for receivers, it's shaping up to be pretty good for tight ends, so maybe McBeane finds his own Greg Olsen there. 

 

Overall, I expect them to follow the same type of formula outlined above and honestly, it's a proven method that shows you can win without a big-time WR. 

Edited January 2, 2019 by blacklabel

[wiskibreth]

I like that Humphreys kid from Tampa Bay. Kid catches balls. Gets better every year.  I think he can be a Beasley/Welker/Edleman type in this offense.    I'd also Draft one.

[TigerJ]

I have said a few times lately that the concept of a #1 QB is overrated, but I think Daboll would welcome an upgrade or two at the WR position.  I want guys who can get open and catch the ball.  Whether or not that earns somebody a label of #1 receiver, I don't much care.

[Johnny Hammersticks]

Okay.  I feel like you’re making a lot of assumptions here.  Who’s to say that a DK Metcalf or N’Keal Harry couldn’t immediately step in and be our best WR?  I kinda get the Daboll thing, but he was never responsible for personnel decisions in NE.  BB made all those calls.  Who’s to say what he will do now that he may have some “clout?”

[GG]

That may have been their tactic heading into this season with a rookie and unproven Peterman.  The strategy may be rethought now that they know what they have in Allen and what is best for his future development.  As I've (and many others) said before, getting a top flight TE is much more important than a #1 WR at this point.

[TigerJ]

They might, Johnny, and I wouldn't mind if Buffalo drafted one of them and it did happen.  Where I think the whole concept is overrated is in the whole process of a QB reading defenses and deciding where to throw the ball.  Sometimes when a QB is not as skilled in reading defenses as one would like, he will tend to "lock on" to his #1 guy and force the throw, even if other receivers are more open.  I would rather my QB have the ability to makes reads and enough confidence in most if not all of his receivers so that a defensive strategy of taking away the #1 receiver cannot work.

12 minutes ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:

Okay.  I feel like you’re making a lot of assumptions here.  Who’s to say that a DK Metcalf or N’Keal Harry couldn’t immediately step in and be our best WR?  I kinda get the Daboll thing, but he was never responsible for personnel decisions in NE.  BB made all those calls.  Who’s to say what he will do now that he may have some “clout?”

 

[Alphadawg7]

Sign one of either Tate or Tyrell.  Then also sign Humphries.  Enter draft with:

 

WR1 - Tate/Tyrell

WR2 - Foster

WR3 - Humphries (in a Kupp type role, could also compete for #2 spot)

WR4 - Zay (lets see how he shakes out when competing against better WR's for his roster spot)

WR5 - McKenzie (depth and ST guy)

 

This is a deep WR class once you get outside the first 15 picks.  We now have no pressure to go WR in the early rounds unless there is a guy they love.  We can now maybe look at a guy like Fant or one of the other TEs in rounds 1 through 3, especially since this isnt a good FA year for TE.  Also focus on OL and other needs early too.  

 

Go out and also bring in some vets on the OL and sign a RB like Ingram or another quality vet to share the load with McCoy next year...and BOOM, divisional crown is a real possibility and we could be a dangerous team next year.  

[Johnny Hammersticks]

3 minutes ago, TigerJ said:

They might, Johnny, and I wouldn't mind if Buffalo drafted one of them and it did happen.  Where I think the whole concept is overrated is in the whole process of a QB reading defenses and deciding where to throw the ball.  Sometimes when a QB is not as skilled in reading defenses as one would like, he will tend to "lock on" to his #1 guy and force the throw, even if other receivers are more open.  I would rather my QB have the ability to makes reads and enough confidence in most if not all of his receivers so that a defensive strategy of taking away the #1 receiver cannot work.

 

 

So having an elite WR is a bad thing?

[Prickly Pete]

If they can't get a WR, I hope they add more diversity to the backfield.

 

I kinda like the idea of them having a bruiser that can wear down a front 7, bring them in, and maybe force the D to keep some bigger, slower guys on the field...opening up the passing game a bit.

This guy caught my eye, and might be available in the later rounds or even as an UDFA

 

 

 

[Big Turk]

We might already have one in Foster...look at how his numbers stack up against the rest of the NFL since week 10:

 

 

[TigerJ]

Just now, Johnny Hammersticks said:

 

So having an elite WR is a bad thing?

Not at all, but an elite WR combined with a somewhat less competent QB can lead to vulnerabilities on offense.  If you've got an elite WR and QB, you're going to be fine.  If you can only have one, you're almost certainly better off with the elite QB and a group of decent WRs.

3 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

We might already have one in Foster...look at how his numbers stack up against the rest of the NFL since week 10:

 

 

He might become an elite WR.

[dwight in philly]

I know this is purely hypothetical.. and unrealistic. but as i sit drinking beer watching the Red Zone. i find myself wondering what it would be like to have Mike Evans..;  maybe cost a first round pick.. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Why can’t we aspire for our team to have the WR Corp so good it’s like there are multiple #1s?? 

 

Whats wrong with Woods/Kupp/Cooks line up or Thielen /Diggs or AB/JuJu.... etc. 

 

Fast guys with great hands, big catch radii, good at separating, etc!!  We want it all!!

 

5 minutes ago, dwight in philly said:

I know this is purely hypothetical.. and unrealistic. but as i sit drinking beer watching the Red Zone. i find myself wondering what it would be like to have Mike Evans..;  maybe cost a first round pick.. 

 

He might be the best of that class. Might be worth it

[eanyills]

1 hour ago, blacklabel said:

Daboll spent a long time in New England where Tom Brady only had a "true WR1" like, once, and that was Randy Moss.

 

 

It’s not like they haven’t tried. Brandin Cooks recently says hello.

[Straight Hucklebuck]

Ever since Tom Brady took Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney to the AFC Title Game, I have tended to believe you don't need a superstar WR to be a Playoff team. 

 

When I watch the Playoffs, I think they tend to boil down to Quarterback play and Defense. 

 

So I think its important that the Bills improve the depth, but chasing a true #1 who is "open when he's not open" has not been a fruitful venture for the Bills in the last 5 years. 

[Aussie Joe]

They will draft two and sign another in Free Agency..

 

I don’t know what else they can reasonably be expected to do..

 

 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, blacklabel said:

I think I've mentioned this in some other threads but it all gets lost in the shuffle.

 

Seems almost every other day we have new threads about how badly the Bills need a number one wide receiver. I'm not saying I disagree, they certainly need some playmakers added to the receiver room, however...

 

I wouldn't hold my breath that they acquire a big-time pass catcher.

 

There are a few reasons, mostly everyone already knows the first two: there's not much in free agency and while there are a handful of receivers in the draft who *could* develop into a number one guy,  there aren't any prospects that are ready to assume that role right from the start. A trade can always happen but I doubt Beane is willing to give up too much at this point, especially after he got the short end of the stick on the KB deal.

 

But the other reason, probably the most important reason we won't see them add a guy like that is because Brian Daboll is their OC. That's not a negative comment, by the way. Daboll spent a long time in New England where Tom Brady only had a "true WR1" like, once, and that was Randy Moss. Other than that, Brady has been throwing to an assorted collection of receivers, backs and tight ends for his entire career. They always have a stable of versatile running backs that can make plays coming out of the backfield. They've usually always rolled with at least one monster a TE (Gronk) and have in past seasons added another monster TE that would be a #1 anywhere else (Martellus Bennett), and slot guys like Edelman and Welker have been their leading receivers more than a few times. Belichick has always put a lot of value in versatility. It's the reason the Pats offense is always able to morph back and forth from a pass-heavy attack to a run-heavy attack or something more balanced. Whatever defense they face, they tailor their offense to exploit weaknesses in that defense. Some teams have their schemes and it's "our guys can beat your guys" and that's that, but more and more you're seeing teams that want to have more than just one offensive identity.

 

Daboll is cut from that same cloth. He's said it since day one, that his offense would be a multi-faceted unit capable of switching gears based upon their opponent. And McDermott, like Belichick, is another coach who values versatility. 

 

I'm not saying that they'll never have an established go-to receiver, but I don't expect it in 2019 just given the circumstances. Really, I'd expect them to add pieces to every offensive skill group; backs, receivers and tight ends. Again, Daboll worked with Gronk, and then you have McBeane who are following the formula they used in Carolina where they had Greg Olsen. On the bright side, while the draft isn't very deep for receivers, it's shaping up to be pretty good for tight ends, so maybe McBeane finds his own Greg Olsen there. 

 

Overall, I expect them to follow the same type of formula outlined above and honestly, it's a proven method that shows you can win without a big-time WR. 

Actually, I'm not sure I care if they ever get a "true" #1.

 

I agree with what you said, and not just because Daboll is the OC.  I think if you look around league, real success in the league is rarely determined by having a "true" #1 wide receiver.   They're nice to have, but not essential.   

 

Seattle doesn't have a "true" #1.  Arizona did and never won.  Atlanta does and never won.  Cincinatti.  Detroit.  Houston.   Moss only won with Belichick (or did the Giants beat them that year?).. 

 

I don't think that lesson is lost on McBeane.  They're building a team, not a collection of talented players.   

 

Add to that the fact that "true" #1 wide receivers sometimes (and more than most other positions) are prima donnas.  Odell Beckham and Antonio Brown are the latest examples.  That's also a no no in McBeane land.  

 

McBeane are going to keep getting the best players that fit what they're doing.  If a "true" #1 comes along with the character, determination and competitiveness that they're looking for, they'll grab him.  A HInes Ward (not a #1), an Andre Reed (not really a true #1), a Larry Fitzgerald.   But until that guy comes along, Allen will be throwing to guys many people here won't like.  

 

Look at Minnesota.  Look at the Rams.  Look at the Chiefs.   

 

One of the dumbest comments we on TV these days is "So-and-so has completed passes to NINE different receivers today."  They say it like it's a big deal and it shows how So-and-so sees the field, etc.   It's baloney.   Offenses are DESIGNED to spread the ball around.   They take advantage of mismatches all over the field, and they don't throw a lot to the #1 because the #1 gets doubled a lot.   

 

"True" #1 wideouts are overrated in terms of building a winner.   Love to have one, no doubt, but they just aren't that important.   Stud left tackle is more important.   A stud GUARD may be more important.  A stud center definitely is.   And three or four guys on the defense are more important.  

[White Linen]

37 minutes ago, eanyills said:

 

 

It’s not like they haven’t tried. Brandin Cooks recently says hello.

 

Welker was a #1 WR too. 

[JimmyNoodles]

33 minutes ago, Aussie Joe said:

They will draft two and sign another in Free Agency..

 

I don’t know what else they can reasonably be expected to do..

 

 

Yes.  I think they draft a TE also.  Rounds 2 to 4 should get some decent options with upside.  

[Da webster guy]

41 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

Ever since Tom Brady took Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney to the AFC Title Game, I have tended to believe you don't need a superstar WR to be a Playoff team. 

 

When I watch the Playoffs, I think they tend to boil down to Quarterback play and Defense. 

 

So I think its important that the Bills improve the depth, but chasing a true #1 who is "open when he's not open" has not been a fruitful venture for the Bills in the last 5 years. 

 

agreed.   I said in an earlier post somewhere, look the Eagles and Bears.  They have some good receivers who get open (like we do) but they don't have a 1000 yard WR (Ertz the tight end had a monster year)

 

We will be fine getting one more good college WR, one TE and then all big boys on both sides of the line.   Maybe a LB.

 

Beane says drafting for need can hurt a team, and he's probably sticking to that which means very likely he does DLine in the first.