Brandon Beanes Presser today…informative

[Shaw66]

8 hours ago, AlCowlingsTaxiService said:

The Bills continue their disdain for Tight Ends 

I don't think so.   I think the TE is the least important guy on the offense, especially in this offense.  And it's hard to get a really good TE - you have to burn draft capital on a position that is a real shot in the dark.  I think that after the top 5 TEs in the league, it doesn't matter all that much which you have.   Would you like one of the top five?   Oh, yeah, sure you would, because he will reshape your offense.   But the Bills offense doesn't need a lot of reshaping, and it isn't easy to find a top 5 guy.   One will come along, but the Bills aren't in a hurry to find one. 

[Shaw66]

6 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yea I am. Others have corrected. He can be activated any time in a 3 week window after week 3.... you would imagine realistically though it probably rules him out of at least the first 4, because the Bills are not gonna cut someone else to bring Stevenson back until they are sure he is full go and that normally is a week of building him up and evaluating. 

Yeah, but I think Stevenson might be full go after a week or two.   There are two weeks of practice now, and two more weeks before he can be activated.   It may have been worth it to the Bills to stash him on IR for three weeks even though he may only need three weeks from today.  In other words, it may be about roster management almost as it's about recovering from the injury.  This is a convenient opportunity to evaluate the oline and dline situations, for example.  And certainly the receive situation.  They probably didn't like having to make the receiver decision yet; this buys them three weeks.  

[Kelly the Dog]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

Yeah, but I think Stevenson might be full go after a week or two.   There are two weeks of practice now, and two more weeks before he can be activated.   It may have been worth it to the Bills to stash him on IR for three weeks even though he may only need three weeks from today.  In other words, it may be about roster management almost as it's about recovering from the injury.  This is a convenient opportunity to evaluate the oline and dline situations, for example.  And certainly the receive situation.  They probably didn't like having to make the receiver decision yet; this buys them three weeks.  

I wouldn't doubt if Stevenson could play opening day. This was just a way to keep the guys they wanted for now. By week three, someone else will be dinged up and they will IR them for 3 weeks (or more).

[Rubes]

1 hour ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I think because it’s only 3 weeks that instead of releasing anyone we’re much more likely to just IR someone with a short or mid term injury. 

 

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. When the time comes, if nobody has been injured requiring short or long-term IR, then they'll have a decision to make. But it's more than likely that at least one person will need to take his place on the short-term IR list.

 

[Shaw66]

5 minutes ago, Rubes said:

 

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. When the time comes, if nobody has been injured requiring short or long-term IR, then they'll have a decision to make. But it's more than likely that at least one person will need to take his place on the short-term IR list.

 

I hadn't thought about it, either, but the new IR rules make it easier on the coach and GM.   When you have multiple guys down 3-6 weeks, it got tight continuing to carry them all on the roster to keep them available for later in the season.   Now, it's much easier to manage that problem.  

[Motorin']

11 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Just listened to it live, don’t have any links to it yet, but it was quite telling in2 areas.

 

1.  We made no waiver claims and will not be making any waiver claims.  In other words, roster is pretty much set unless a trade comes up or injuries.

 

2.  Ferguson is the only one being brought back, Stevenson to IR, meaning he’s out at least the first 3 weeks of practice.
 

So, that means McKenzie can’t be in to serious of a situation and also Hollister was a legit real cut, not to just make an IR move.  Doesn't mean he cant make it back still, but it wasn't a cut to make a move with the intent of coming right back.
 

So some questions have been answered, and unless there is some undisclosed trade he is working on (which seems highly unlikely), we are set at TE with Knox and Sweeney and Gilliam as an emergency TE.

 

Oh man, Beane is becoming legendary. Did you hear him talk about getting rid of guys who might be talented but, in his exact words, are "big turds" in the locker room? 

 

Kills me he called some of his former players turds in his press conference. 

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Yeah, but I think Stevenson might be full go after a week or two.   There are two weeks of practice now, and two more weeks before he can be activated.   It may have been worth it to the Bills to stash him on IR for three weeks even though he may only need three weeks from today.  In other words, it may be about roster management almost as it's about recovering from the injury.  This is a convenient opportunity to evaluate the oline and dline situations, for example.  And certainly the receive situation.  They probably didn't like having to make the receiver decision yet; this buys them three weeks.  

 

Indeed but he isn't allowed to do anything while he is on IR so there will need to be a bit of a recondition once those 3 weeks are done. I think realistically it probably means he misses the first 4 games. It is also the case of course that the Bills don't have to bring him back after 3 weeks. If this is a stash they might leave him on IR longer and only bring him back if another receiver gets dinged up.

[Scott7975]

1 hour ago, Motorin' said:

 

Oh man, Beane is becoming legendary. Did you hear him talk about getting rid of guys who might be talented but, in his exact words, are "big turds" in the locker room? 

 

Kills me he called some of his former players turds in his press conference. 

 

Dareus comes to mind

[GunnerBill]

Just watched it. Beane is the absolute epitome of a straight shooter. A very interesting listen every time he speaks and he pretty much tells you exactly what he is thinking. McDermott obviously keeps things very close to his chest but Brandon is pretty open and honest with the media on decisions he is making and direction the team is heading in etc. The message that I really took away from it was "we didn't get enough from our dline last year and if it means keeping 11 guys to sort that out then 11 guys it is." 

 

 

[AlCowlingsTaxiService]

11 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't think so.   I think the TE is the least important guy on the offense, especially in this offense.  And it's hard to get a really good TE - you have to burn draft capital on a position that is a real shot in the dark.  I think that after the top 5 TEs in the league, it doesn't matter all that much which you have.   Would you like one of the top five?   Oh, yeah, sure you would, because he will reshape your offense.   But the Bills offense doesn't need a lot of reshaping, and it isn't easy to find a top 5 guy.   One will come along, but the Bills aren't in a hurry to find one. 

When Jay Remersma and Mark Brammer are two of your franchises top players at the position in history, I’d definitely like better.  Perhaps I’m scarred by watching the likes of Ben Coates, among many others, continually torture Bills defenses.  At any rate, I think the only true positional hole 5is team has is a reliable chain moving tight end. 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, AlCowlingsTaxiService said:

When Jay Remersma and Mark Brammer are two of your franchises top players at the position in history, I’d definitely like better.  Perhaps I’m scarred by watching the likes of Ben Coates, among many others, continually torture Bills defenses.  At any rate, I think the only true positional hole 5is team has is a reliable chain moving tight end. 

I agree with all of this.  TE is the biggest positional hole.   However, I also think it's the least important position on the starting 22.   Unless you have one of the top 3 TEs in the business, your TE is not the guy who's winning or losing games for you.   As others have said, when you're coming at defenses with Diggs, Beasley, Sanders, and Davis, with McKenzie thrown into the mix here and there, your tight end is not going to be an important target.   

 

I say the tight end is not important for a couple of reasons.   First, if your tight end is your star receiver, he reshapes your offense.  He causes your offensive focus to be the center of the field, because that's primarily where he operates.   You'd much rather have Diggs and Sanders be your primary threats than Kittles, even though I would absolutely love having a Kittles.  You'd rather have the wideouts because they force the opponent to defend the whole field.  Tight ends don't.

 

Second, when you do have wideouts like the Bills have, you don't need a stellar tight end.  All the TE has to do is be a good route runner.   Very few tight ends can generate separation on their own - they get separation by running to the openings created when the defensive backs are chasing good wideouts.   Sweeney can get to the open spaces in the defense as well as Kelce can - it doesn't take supreme physical talent to run to those openings.  It takes brains and discipline.  Is Kelce better?  Of course, no question.  The question is how many more balls will Kelce catch playing in that offense than Knox would catch in that offense.   I think it's less than you think.  Why does Mahomes throw a lot to Kelce?   Because he doesn't have Beasley, that's why.  Kelce is his Beasley.  

 

It's the same as punters.   Sure, I want the best punter in the league.   But the difference in your win total for the year between having the best punter in the league and an average punter is essentially zero.    Teams rarely look back at their seasons and say, "we made it to the playoffs because of our punter."   Yes, a great punt might actually win a game for you once every few seasons, but it's only slightly more likely that the great punt will come from the best punter as from an average punter.   It's just one punt that the punter hit just right, and the average punters in the league hit a lot of punts just right.  

 

 

[Logic]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I say the tight end is not important for a couple of reasons.   First, if your tight end is your star receiver, he reshapes your offense.  He causes your offensive focus to be the center of the field, because that's primarily where he operates.   You'd much rather have Diggs and Sanders be your primary threats than Kittles, even though I would absolutely love having a Kittles.  You'd rather have the wideouts because they force the opponent to defend the whole field.  Tight ends don't.

 

Second, when you do have wideouts like the Bills have, you don't need a stellar tight end. 

I'm trying to learn to look at NFL offenses in terms of "threats" or playmakers. In other words, who are the top targets on the offense? Who does the defense have to account for every play? Ideally, you'd like to have 3-4 of those guys on your offense. The Bills do, in Stefon Diggs, Cole Beasley, and Gabe Davis -- and now likely in Emmanuel Sanders. When you're already throwing a significant number of passes to four different receivers, it's going to be hard to find many opportunities to get the ball to your tight end.

When people talk about the Chiefs and the 49ers and how awesome and game-changing their tight ends are, the "how many threats/weapons does the offense have?" question gets glossed over. In the case of the Chiefs, I count Tyreek Hill, Travis Kelce, Mecole Hardman, and maybe Clyde Edwards-Helaire. That is to say that the Chiefs don't necessarily have more offensive weapons than the Bills do, one of them just happens to be a tight end. Ditto the 49ers. They have Aiyuk, Samuel, and Kittle. Still in that 3-4 range. 

The "star #1 WR and star TE" model works for those offenses, but it doesn't signify that they're any more potent than the Bills' setup of a star #1 WR and a host of talented 2s and 3s. I would argue that the Bills' pass-catching corps -- including TEs and WRs -- is just as deep and talented, if not more so, than the Chiefs and 49ers. The talent is just distributed differently. 

If we suddenly DID have a star TE, I'm not sure we could get him the targets to justify the pay he would command. And if we DID come up with those targets, it would be at the expense of Diggs, Beasley, Sanders, and Davis. 

There are different ways to skin a cat. At the end of the day, all that matters is "how many points did you score?", and the Bills scored the most last year that they ever have in team history -- sans star tight end.

[DrDawkinstein]

13 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

So Sweeney is big foot now, right?  It’s his new Nick name 😁👍

 

I thought that was Steve Christie and Little Ceaser's?

[Shaw66]

18 minutes ago, Logic said:

I'm trying to learn to look at NFL offenses in terms of "threats" or playmakers. In other words, who are the top targets on the offense? Who does the defense have to account for every play? Ideally, you'd like to have 3-4 of those guys on your offense. The Bills do, in Stefon Diggs, Cole Beasley, and Gabe Davis -- and now likely in Emmanuel Sanders. When you're already throwing a significant number of passes to four different receivers, it's going to be hard to find many opportunities to get the ball to your tight end.

When people talk about the Chiefs and the 49ers and how awesome and game-changing their tight ends are, the "how many threats/weapons does the offense have?" question gets glossed over. In the case of the Chiefs, I count Tyreek Hill, Travis Kelce, Mecole Hardman, and maybe Clyde Edwards-Helaire. That is to say that the Chiefs don't necessarily have more offensive weapons than the Bills do, one of them just happens to be a tight end. Ditto the 49ers. They have Aiyuk, Samuel, and Kittle. Still in that 3-4 range. 

The "star #1 WR and star TE" model works for those offenses, but it doesn't signify that they're any more potent than the Bills' setup of a star #1 WR and a host of talented 2s and 3s. I would argue that the Bills' pass-catching corps -- including TEs and WRs -- is just as deep and talented, if not more so, than the Chiefs and 49ers. The talent is just distributed differently. 

If we suddenly DID have a star TE, I'm not sure we could get him the targets to justify the pay he would command. And if we DID come up with those targets, it would be at the expense of Diggs, Beasley, Sanders, and Davis. 

There are different ways to skin a cat. At the end of the day, all that matters is "how many points did you score?", and the Bills scored the most last year that they ever have in team history -- sans star tight end.

Right. Same is true for running back.  How many touches does Saquon Barkley get in the Bills' offense?  If you make him the workhorse, the receding talent is wasted.  

 

And that's why the Ravens have trouble getting high end receivers. 

 

 

[The Dean]

15 hours ago, Scott7975 said:

 

Dareus comes to mind

 

Was Dareus unpopular with hit teammates? Isn't that basically what a "turd in the locker room" means?

[Punching Bag]

16 hours ago, Motorin' said:

 

Oh man, Beane is becoming legendary. Did you hear him talk about getting rid of guys who might be talented but, in his exact words, are "big turds" in the locker room? 

 

Kills me he called some of his former players turds in his press conference. 

 

Yeah I was wondering why veterans they hired in Carolina who was a "big turd".

 

And was the player a sinker or a floater?

[Patrick Duffy]

5 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Yeah I was wondering why veterans they hired in Carolina who was a "big turd".

 

And was the player a sinker or a floater?

Neither....more like the oil spill type

[Motorin']

11 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Yeah I was wondering why veterans they hired in Carolina who was a "big turd".

 

And was the player a sinker or a floater?

 

I think Beane's probably gotten rid of sinkers, floaters and a few skid marks in his day.

[Scott7975]

39 minutes ago, The Dean said:

 

Was Dareus unpopular with hit teammates? Isn't that basically what a "turd in the locker room" means?

 

I dunno if he was or not.  Could mean a lot of things.

[The Dean]

21 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

I dunno if he was or not.  Could mean a lot of things.

 

I would imagine, when you mention "locker room", you are referring to how a guy impacts team chemistry. I have no idea if Dareus was a distraction in the locker room, but I think we would have heard about it. I can almost guarantee he was  a turd for the front office, but that isn't the locker room.