Lee, we hardly knew ye

[JGMcD2]

1 hour ago, klos63 said:

Hardly, but save me the time and point out examples of this 'freakish athlete'. I would think they'd be quite obvious, right?  Beane obviously isn't happy with TE production.

 

All of these here are workout metrics... or measures of athleticism. They belong to Dawson Knox. Dawson Knox is either considered extraordinary or legitimately right on the cusp of being extraordinary by each one of these metrics when compared to other tight ends. 

 

The definition of extraordinary...  very unusual or remarkable. 

 

The definition of freakish... bizarre or grotesque; abnormal. 

 

Dawson Knox is a freakish athlete. Nobody is arguing he's a consistent producer... but you seem to be confusing freakish athleticism for production.

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

7 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

He also mentioned that he's the son of an NFL player (Dallas Cowboys offensive tackle Daryle Smith) and had footballs being thrown at him his whole life, so he's never had any problem catching the football.  Said his incompletions are probably footballs thrown at his feet when he was pass-protecting, but his problem is he can't get open.  Though I have noticed that when Josh throws to Smith, it seems as though he does take something off it - maybe that's just an adjustment to Lee's lack of speed.

 

 

Here, I think, he's indulging in hyperbole.  He's clearly a great storyteller, but he was cut by the Pats in the final roster cutdown, and signed by the Bills the next day.  I doubt his Dad or his wife's mom would let either of them donate plasma, either.

I agree, @Blue on Blue, great find, thanks for posting.

 

You mean when he said Knox is uncoverable?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

You mean when he said Knox is uncoverable?

 

Your quote suggests you're responding to my post.  Did you read it?

Here it is again:

@Blue on Blue

Quote

Talked about how being drafted in the 5th round by the Patriots with Gronk and Hernandez on the team and how it made him doubt he could play in the league.  Then he gets cut and he is talking to his high school sweetheart wife with their third kid on the way and they have college debt and they are donating plasma and eating Ramen noodles to get by.

My response:

Quote

Here, I think, he's indulging in hyperbole.  He's clearly a great storyteller, but he was cut by the Pats in the final roster cutdown, and signed by the Bills the next day.  I doubt his Dad or his wife's mom would let either of them donate plasma, either.

 

If you want to make a point, please don't "trail" me to do it.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, JGMcD2 said:

 

Sorry, serious outlier was a gross exaggeration. I misremembered what I had put together... reaching 1100 is fairly extreme and anything over 1150 is an outlier over the last 10 seasons. This was saved from the last time I posted it, but I have another boxplot on my computer showing the cumulative of the last 10 seasons. 
 

Where the Bills were this year was at the upper limits of the 3rd quartile over a 10 season span. You’re REALLY pushing it getting anywhere above there. It’s just not all the much more room. Another thing, is how many of those teams were actually top teams? I know one season was New England where they had like 1200 something plays... but if I recall correctly it was almost random as to the caliber of team that found themselves running over 1100 plays. There are years bad Bills teams were running within 15 plays of what we ran this year... the Bills in 2013 who were 6-10 ran 1116 plays. 

 

Nice work on the numbers. 

 

I think we're addressing somewhat different questions.  You seem to be addressing "what is the average, and are we already above the average?" to which the answer is "lower than our current output, and yes".

 

I'm looking at the question "within the constraints of a 60 minute NFL game, is it realistic to believe our offense could actually run more plays?" and it seems to me that you don't want to look at the average  or even the 3rd quartile to answer that question...you want to look at how many plays the top teams for plays on offense manage to fit into those 60 minutes.  So that's what I did.

[JGMcD2]

29 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Nice work on the numbers. 

 

I think we're addressing somewhat different questions.  You seem to be addressing "what is the average, and are we already above the average?" to which the answer is "lower than our current output, and yes".

 

I'm looking at the question "within the constraints of a 60 minute NFL game, is it realistic to believe our offense could actually run more plays?" and it seems to me that you don't want to look at the average  or even the 3rd quartile to answer that question...you want to look at how many plays the top teams for plays on offense manage to fit into those 60 minutes.  So that's what I did.

Well what I am trying to say is that because we’re above the median and in the 3rd quartile, there may be room for growth, but I don’t think the ability for growth is large enough to strive for and I do not believe it’s going to provide any significant gains. 
 

Yes, we’re above the median. We’re also right around the 3rd quartile, the difference between Q3 and the max in my opinion is somewhat random. There’s nothing that tells me better offenses run more plays, it seems to be random, but I need to explore further. I don’t think an extra 60 plays over 16 games is going to create any significant gains for the Bills offense. Especially in the passing game... that’s two extra targets a game. I don’t think it’s changing anything significantly and while you’ve proven it’s possible we could run more plays (I don’t disagree) it also seems completely random as to the caliber of team that runs more plays. 
 

At some point there may be diminishing returns in running plays. TOP is great but if you’re running 15 play 40 yard drives it doesn’t matter because you’re not scoring... I think we’re better served maximizing the plays that we have... which we know is somewhere closer to the amount we ran this year and to get to a higher volume of plays isn’t necessarily predictive of offensive success. 

Edited February 28, 2021 by JGMcD2

[Mr. WEO]

49 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Your quote suggests you're responding to my post.  Did you read it?

Here it is again:

@Blue on Blue

My response:

 

If you want to make a point, please don't "trail" me to do it.

i was making a funny.

 

sorry man

[Hapless Bills Fan]

11 minutes ago, JGMcD2 said:

Well what I am trying to say is that because we’re above the median and in the 3rd quartile, there may be room for growth, but I don’t think the ability for growth is large enough to strive for and I do not believe it’s going to provide any significant gains.

 

Heh.  At the risk of sounding like Johnny One Note here, what do you mean by "significant gains"?

Lee Smith was talking about what happens if you take 20 balls away from Diggs?  I'm suggesting that there's room to add 20-30 pass plays.  That's like, 3% more plays. Is that a significant gain, or no?

 

Make life easy, say 32 - that's 2 additional pass plays per game.  Is that significant?

 

In the AFC championship game, we converted 5 of 14 3rd downs.  Would 5, or even 2 or 3, more conversions have helped swing the game?

In the two previous playoff games where we won, but our offense wasn't lighting the place up, 4-13 (Ravens) and 2-9 (Colts) - ditto Q?

 

 

[JGMcD2]

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Heh.  At the risk of sounding like Johnny One Note here, what do you mean by "significant gains"?

Lee Smith was talking about what happens if you take 20 balls away from Diggs?  I'm suggesting that there's room to add 20-30 pass plays.  That's like, 3% more plays. Is that a significant gain, or no?

 

Make life easy, say 32 - that's 2 additional pass plays per game.  Is that significant?

 

In the AFC championship game, we converted 5 of 14 3rd downs.  Would 5, or even 2 or 3, more conversions have helped swing the game?

In the two previous playoff games where we won, but our offense wasn't lighting the place up, 4-13 (Ravens) and 2-9 (Colts) - ditto Q?

 

 

Significant gains as it relates to offensive success. Running more plays doesn’t necessarily mean we’re having more success offensively. 
 

Nothing suggests to me you need more plays to have more success on offense. 2018 and 2019 Chiefs ran less than 1K plays, Packers ran less than 1K plays this year. The Bucs ran less plays than us this year. I need to look deeper but it doesn’t seem like a team needs to run more than 1,034 plays to be a top offense in this league. 
 

I get what you’re trying to say there with converting 3rd Downs, as it leads to more plays. We were also pretty good at that as well during the course of the year and it will be hard to significantly improve. 

Yes, more conversations would have helped, but so would a 1 play 80 yard bomb to Diggs. We ran more plays than the Chiefs that game too BTW. 72 to 65. Oddly enough we ran less plays in the games we won and ran more plays in the game we lost in the playoffs. 

[whorlnut]

6 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Lee Smith, who FWIW seems to be in the category "can catch, if he can manage to get open and it's thrown to him", seems to disagree with you there.

He says that catching is like dribbling a basketball or shooting 3 pointers:  the more you work at something, the more instinctive it becomes.

 

What you say sort of reminds me of the consensus Pundit view about accuracy for a QB: you either have it or you don't, it can't be improved.  And yet, last season....

Whatever you say...

7 hours ago, transient said:

Knox can catch. What he’s failed to prove is whether he can kee his head in the game for an entire 60 minutes. Typically, when he’s making a boneheaded play it’s something routine, and yet he manages to make low percentage catches fairly regularly. 

And he drops routine ones fairly regularly too...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, JGMcD2 said:

Significant gains as it relates to offensive success. Running more plays doesn’t necessarily mean we’re having more success offensively. 
 

Nothing suggests to me you need more plays to have more success on offense. 2018 and 2019 Chiefs ran less than 1K plays, Packers ran less than 1K plays this year. The Bucs ran less plays than us this year. I need to look deeper but it doesn’t seem like a team needs to run more than 1,034 plays to be a top offense in this league. 
 

I get what you’re trying to say there with converting 3rd Downs, as it leads to more plays. We were also pretty good at that as well during the course of the year and it will be hard to significantly improve. 

Yes, more conversations would have helped, but so would a 1 play 80 yard bomb to Diggs. We ran more plays than the Chiefs that game too BTW. 72 to 65. Oddly enough we ran less plays in the games we won and ran more plays in the game we lost in the playoffs. 

 

Again, we're talking about different things, which is leading to talking past each other.

 

I'm not talking hypotheticals for the most part, I'm talking about specific gaps I see in the Bills offensive game and how filling them in could impact the team without requiring a zero-sum game.

 

In the games where we struggled, is that teams were playing to take away the deeper stuff that was our bread and butter and force 3 and outs.  Yes, we had more plays in those games because we weren't getting that quick strike passing game.  The issue is how to solve that.

[Beerball]

22 hours ago, Blue on Blue said:

Lee Smith, at length (with Tim Graham and Matthew Fairburn) on life in general; life in the NFL; Allen, Knox, Brady, Mahomes, etc.

 

Warning:  This may challenge your presumptions and assumptions.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JudiM6U_b4I
 

Very enjoyable, thanks for posting.  

 

I wonder if Graham knows how punchable his face is?

[klos63]

5 hours ago, eball said:

 

I don’t know what you’ve been watching but Knox’s athleticism is obvious to anyone paying attention.  He just hasn’t fully developed into the position yet and is still learning.  Remember a guy named Josh Allen who took some time because he didn’t have as much experience as other guys?

 

The topic is 'freakish' athleticism, I don't see it and nobody can point it out to me.

5 hours ago, JGMcD2 said:

 

All of these here are workout metrics... or measures of athleticism. They belong to Dawson Knox. Dawson Knox is either considered extraordinary or legitimately right on the cusp of being extraordinary by each one of these metrics when compared to other tight ends. 

 

The definition of extraordinary...  very unusual or remarkable. 

 

The definition of freakish... bizarre or grotesque; abnormal. 

 

Dawson Knox is a freakish athlete. Nobody is arguing he's a consistent producer... but you seem to be confusing freakish athleticism for production.

 

 

I'm not sure I get the chart, is the 86th the percentile he's in?

[JGMcD2]

14 minutes ago, klos63 said:

The topic is 'freakish' athleticism, I don't see it and nobody can point it out to me.

I'm not sure I get the chart, is the 86th the percentile he's in?

I explained the chart to you. 

35 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Again, we're talking about different things, which is leading to talking past each other.

 

I'm not talking hypotheticals for the most part, I'm talking about specific gaps I see in the Bills offensive game and how filling them in could impact the team without requiring a zero-sum game.

 

In the games where we struggled, is that teams were playing to take away the deeper stuff that was our bread and butter and force 3 and outs.  Yes, we had more plays in those games because we weren't getting that quick strike passing game.  The issue is how to solve that.

I want to make sure I’m getting it right then... you’re saying given that Josh Allen is able to hit his check down options more often... there is room for us to run more plays? 
 

I’m honestly kind of confused, partly by you and partly by myself. I don’t think running more plays fixes any gaps in our offense? 
 

Sorry for the confusion. 

[Punching Bag]

1 hour ago, Beerball said:

Very enjoyable, thanks for posting.  

 

I wonder if Graham knows how punchable his face is?

 

He knows.  He likely has been punched a lot.

[Buffalo716]

Knox is very inconsistent but he is definitely an elite athlete at the position

 

His speed, quickness, physicality, jumping.. you know  , athletic traits, are all in the upper echelon 

 

If anybody doubts what kind of athlete he is. Just watch what he does with the ball when it's in his hands... he is the most physically imposing player on the roster with The Rock

[Richard Noggin]

13 hours ago, klos63 said:

He knows better than I , but I haven't seen anything 'freakish' about Knox yet. Most NFL players are great athletes, nothing really stands out with him. I wouldn't cut him, I think he's a decent 2nd tight end, but would love to get Engram from the Giants for this season.

 

Come on. His handful of angry runs (after catch) have unquestionably displayed explosive athleticism. 

 

The issue with Knox is a lack of consistent hands, blocking (too many total whiffs), and general spatial awareness (too often we've watched him jump or lunge for touch passes he should instead have sprinted underneath). That's a potentially damning list of flaws. 

 

Hell, his plus athleticism is probably the only reason he's still in the league. 

[Buffalo716]

Just now, Richard Noggin said:

 

Come on. His handful of angry runs (after catch) have unquestionably displayed explosive athleticism. 

 

The issue with Knox is a lack of consistent hands, blocking (too many total whiffs), and general spatial awareness (too often we've watched him jump or lunge for touch passes he should instead have sprinted underneath). That's a potentially damning list of flaws. 

 

Hell, his plus athleticism is probably the only reason he's still in the league. 

Exactly. Knox got drafted and is getting every chance because of his freakish athleticism

 

Not his actual tight end skills, which are improving

[Richard Noggin]

7 hours ago, JGMcD2 said:

 

All of these here are workout metrics... or measures of athleticism. They belong to Dawson Knox. Dawson Knox is either considered extraordinary or legitimately right on the cusp of being extraordinary by each one of these metrics when compared to other tight ends. 

 

The definition of extraordinary...  very unusual or remarkable. 

 

The definition of freakish... bizarre or grotesque; abnormal. 

 

Dawson Knox is a freakish athlete. Nobody is arguing he's a consistent producer... but you seem to be confusing freakish athleticism for production.

 

 

 

To be fair, these metrics don't necessarily scream freakish athleticism. They definitely do, however, loudly proclaim top-quartile athleticism. Knox is demonstrably more explosive than the majority of NFL TEs. But he's not Vernon Davis fast, or Gronk big, for example. Those are/were freakish athletes. He's simply very athletic all around. 

[Buffalo716]

6 minutes ago, Richard Noggin said:

 

To be fair, these metrics don't necessarily scream freakish athleticism. They definitely do, however, loudly proclaim top-quartile athleticism. Knox is demonstrably more explosive than the majority of NFL TEs. But he's not Vernon Davis fast, or Gronk big, for example. Those are/were freakish athletes. He's simply very athletic all around. 

Honestly knox's numbers are actually better than gronks across the board for those metrics

 

And gronk is slightly taller by 2 in, but their weight is basically the same

 

During the draft process I actually said that Knox plays like gronk after the catch he's just not as complete of an actual tight end.. but physically you don't get much better than a guy like knox or gronk from a height weight speed physicality standpoint

 

 

Edited February 28, 2021 by Buffalo716

[Chandler#81]

8 hours ago, Beerball said:

Very enjoyable, thanks for posting.  

 

I wonder if Graham knows how punchable his face is?

Please let us know. -and post pics!