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.

[ColoradoBills]

On 9/1/2021 at 10:47 AM, TFBillsfan said:

Bigger question is who gets cut when he comes off?

 

One option could be a DL player.  After a few weeks of play just maybe someone sinks enough compared to the rest to be a cut.

[Thurman#1]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned what I took from this PC. It is yet another hint that Allen has probably been vaccinated. Here's Jay Skurski's transcription of a bit of the conference, and Skurski read this the same way I did. It's from his mailbag.

 

 

"Michael Lenhard asks: With Jake Fromm and Davis Webb on the practice squad and the Delta variant wreaking havoc, will the Bills use a philosophy like last year and separate a quarterback? If so, will it be Fromm again and why?

 

"Jay: Brandon Beane was asked that this week and said that is currently not the plan. 'We don't plan to do that right now with the way the rules are,' he said. 'We feel confident that (Allen’s) not going to get ruled out for contact tracing or anything like that. Never say never. It’s ever evolving with this virus, but I don't think that would be our plan to start the season.'”

 

 

I don't think they'd be that confident if they didn't know Allen was vaccinated.

 

 

[Doc Brown]

22 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned what I took from this PC. It is yet another hint that Allen has probably been vaccinated. Here's Jay Skurski's transcription of a bit of the conference, and Skurski read this the same way I did. It's from his mailbag.

 

 

"Michael Lenhard asks: With Jake Fromm and Davis Webb on the practice squad and the Delta variant wreaking havoc, will the Bills use a philosophy like last year and separate a quarterback? If so, will it be Fromm again and why?

 

"Jay: Brandon Beane was asked that this week and said that is currently not the plan. 'We don't plan to do that right now with the way the rules are,' he said. 'We feel confident that (Allen’s) not going to get ruled out for contact tracing or anything like that. Never say never. It’s ever evolving with this virus, but I don't think that would be our plan to start the season.'”

 

 

I don't think they'd be that confident if they didn't know Allen was vaccinated.

 

 

Good catch.  I don't think Beane signs Allen to a quarter of a billion dollar deal without the stipulation that he gets vaccinated.  Plus, all Josh said was that he needed to do more research as he admitted he wasn't as caught up on the vaccine information as he could've been.  Since he seems like an intelligent kid I assume he got the vaccine.

[GunnerBill]

41 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned what I took from this PC. It is yet another hint that Allen has probably been vaccinated. Here's Jay Skurski's transcription of a bit of the conference, and Skurski read this the same way I did. It's from his mailbag.

 

 

"Michael Lenhard asks: With Jake Fromm and Davis Webb on the practice squad and the Delta variant wreaking havoc, will the Bills use a philosophy like last year and separate a quarterback? If so, will it be Fromm again and why?

 

"Jay: Brandon Beane was asked that this week and said that is currently not the plan. 'We don't plan to do that right now with the way the rules are,' he said. 'We feel confident that (Allen’s) not going to get ruled out for contact tracing or anything like that. Never say never. It’s ever evolving with this virus, but I don't think that would be our plan to start the season.'”

 

 

I don't think they'd be that confident if they didn't know Allen was vaccinated.

 

 

 

I also feel pretty sure Allen is vacced at this point but when Brandon answered that question it wasn't clear, as Jay took it, that Allen was the guy in parenthesis that Beane meant. He could have done. He could also have meant Fromm - ie. We don't need to isolate Fromm because we are pretty sure whoever else in the room tests positive won't knock Fromm out as a close contact and so he'd still be available (because he, Fromm, is vacced). 

 

I think it was still ambiguous. 

[Sherlock Holmes]

On 9/1/2021 at 12:34 PM, foreboding said:

Thinking our TEs might be blockers this year. I could see Gilliam getting some reps, unless Butterfingers gets better.

Nobody better lay a finger on my Butterfinger!

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I also feel pretty sure Allen is vacced at this point but when Brandon answered that question it wasn't clear, as Jay took it, that Allen was the guy in parenthesis that Beane meant. He could have done. He could also have meant Fromm - ie. We don't need to isolate Fromm because we are pretty sure whoever else in the room tests positive won't knock Fromm out as a close contact and so he'd still be available (because he, Fromm, is vacced). 

 

I think it was still ambiguous. 

Hopefully it was Fromm🤮

[Thurman#1]

33 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I also feel pretty sure Allen is vacced at this point but when Brandon answered that question it wasn't clear, as Jay took it, that Allen was the guy in parenthesis that Beane meant. He could have done. He could also have meant Fromm - ie. We don't need to isolate Fromm because we are pretty sure whoever else in the room tests positive won't knock Fromm out as a close contact and so he'd still be available (because he, Fromm, is vacced). 

 

I think it was still ambiguous. 

 

 

I agree that it wasn't 100% clear, Gunner, which is why I said that I read it the way Skurski does.

 

But Jay is closer to the situation than we are. He may have cleared this up, rather than just "taking it," as you say. Or he may not have. Dunno, obviously.

 

But what Brandon said indicates to me that the whole QB room is vaccinated. It doesn't prove it, that's very true. But it's likely. A room with one unvaccinated guy is much more likely to have issues which would require contact tracing, break-throughs and other problems which would make keeping one QB separated a much more necessary play.

[GunnerBill]

27 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I agree that it wasn't 100% clear, Gunner, which is why I said that I read it the way Skurski does.

 

But Jay is closer to the situation than we are. He may have cleared this up, rather than just "taking it," as you say. Or he may not have. Dunno, obviously.

 

But what Brandon said indicates to me that the whole QB room is vaccinated. It doesn't prove it, that's very true. But it's likely. A room with one unvaccinated guy is much more likely to have issues which would require contact tracing, break-throughs and other problems which would make keeping one QB separated a much more necessary play.

 

I think he was on about Fromm but I agree the sense I got from it all was that the entire QB room is vacced.

[Coach Tuesday]

On 9/1/2021 at 1:19 PM, jeremy2020 said:

The legend of Kiko Alonso which was replaced by the Legend of Robert Foster and then replaced by the Legend of Duke Williams has no been replaced by the Legend of Lee Smith and Jacob Hollister. 

Timmy Tindale says “hi.”

[Doc]

I don't recall a legend of Lee Smith.

[SectionC3]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I also feel pretty sure Allen is vacced at this point but when Brandon answered that question it wasn't clear, as Jay took it, that Allen was the guy in parenthesis that Beane meant. He could have done. He could also have meant Fromm - ie. We don't need to isolate Fromm because we are pretty sure whoever else in the room tests positive won't knock Fromm out as a close contact and so he'd still be available (because he, Fromm, is vacced). 

 

I think it was still ambiguous. 

 

 

There was a press scrum early in camp in which Hyde/Poyer were masked and Allen wasn't.  That was my hint that Allen took the vax.  I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that he's been vaccinated.  

[Rico]

2 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Timmy Tindale says “hi.”

Don't forget Lou Piccone.

[HappyDays]

On 9/2/2021 at 10:15 AM, Shaw66 said:

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.  

 

Kelce is a much, MUCH better player than Beasley. Kelce is the 2nd best TE in the NFL. You're downplaying his athleticism here. Kelce isn't just a cerebral TE. He is fast and difficult to cover. Beasley does one thing very well but his success in the Bills offense is more a product of Allen's elite skill set matching up perfectly with Beasley's skill set. Beasley was a fine player in Dallas; he started being talked about as the best slot receiver in the game in Buffalo. Kelce has been an elite TE since Alex Smith was throwing him the ball.

 

The Bills are a lot deeper at WR than the Chiefs, and I would argue Diggs is slightly better than Hill, but the Chiefs will still always have better skill players on the field because the combination of Hill and Kelce is a lot better than the combination of Diggs and anyone else the Bills have. The Chiefs have two skill players that are top 3 players at their position; the Bills have one. I have never been one to believe that great depth makes up the difference to great talent.

 

So it isn't necessarily the case that the Bills need a top tier TE, but it would be nice if we had another top tier skill player at any position. That would help close the gap against the Chiefs. I think it is actually better to have a non-WR be that player. As in I'd rather have Diggs and Kittle or Diggs and Derrick Henry, than Diggs and Deandre Hopkins, because the first and second scenario gives our offense an elite option to attack any defense no matter their strength.

[Sherlock Holmes]

17 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Kelce is a much, MUCH better player than Beasley. Kelce is the 2nd best TE in the NFL. You're downplaying his athleticism here. Kelce isn't just a cerebral TE. He is fast and difficult to cover. Beasley does one thing very well but his success in the Bills offense is more a product of Allen's elite skill set matching up perfectly with Beasley's skill set. Beasley was a fine player in Dallas; he started being talked about as the best slot receiver in the game in Buffalo. Kelce has been an elite TE since Alex Smith was throwing him the ball.

 

The Bills are a lot deeper at WR than the Chiefs, and I would argue Diggs is slightly better than Hill, but the Chiefs will still always have better skill players on the field because the combination of Hill and Kelce is a lot better than the combination of Diggs and anyone else the Bills have. The Chiefs have two skill players that are top 3 players at their position; the Bills have one. I have never been one to believe that great depth makes up the difference to great talent.

 

So it isn't necessarily the case that the Bills need a top tier TE, but it would be nice if we had another top tier skill player at any position. That would help close the gap against the Chiefs. I think it is actually better to have a non-WR be that player. As in I'd rather have Diggs and Kittle or Diggs and Derrick Henry, than Diggs and Deandre Hopkins, because the first and second scenario gives our offense an elite option to attack any defense no matter their strength.

You mean McCaffrey, Kittle and Diggs...

[Putin]

On 9/1/2021 at 11:45 AM, jeremy2020 said:

 

I'm high on Gilliam. I think he could play an interesting role being moved around. In the limited snaps he's had, he's been sure handed. 

I agree 100% !

I also think he will make a big difference in all aspects in the running game 

Edited September 5, 2021 by Putin

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 9/2/2021 at 4:46 PM, The Dean said:

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.

 

I heard some stuff that impacts the locker room - like coming in late, being late for meetings, taking plays off in practice (he certainly did in games), and use of weed.

 

 

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

Kelce is a much, MUCH better player than Beasley. Kelce is the 2nd best TE in the NFL. You're downplaying his athleticism here. Kelce isn't just a cerebral TE. He is fast and difficult to cover. Beasley does one thing very well but his success in the Bills offense is more a product of Allen's elite skill set matching up perfectly with Beasley's skill set. Beasley was a fine player in Dallas; he started being talked about as the best slot receiver in the game in Buffalo. Kelce has been an elite TE since Alex Smith was throwing him the ball.

 

The Bills are a lot deeper at WR than the Chiefs, and I would argue Diggs is slightly better than Hill, but the Chiefs will still always have better skill players on the field because the combination of Hill and Kelce is a lot better than the combination of Diggs and anyone else the Bills have. The Chiefs have two skill players that are top 3 players at their position; the Bills have one. I have never been one to believe that great depth makes up the difference to great talent.

 

So it isn't necessarily the case that the Bills need a top tier TE, but it would be nice if we had another top tier skill player at any position. That would help close the gap against the Chiefs. I think it is actually better to have a non-WR be that player. As in I'd rather have Diggs and Kittle or Diggs and Derrick Henry, than Diggs and Deandre Hopkins, because the first and second scenario gives our offense an elite option to attack any defense no matter their strength.

I agree with this, but I don't think I said anything that disagreed with it.  I agree Kelce and Hill are better than Diggs and whoever, although Davis may turn out to be Robin to Diggs's Batman.  And I agree that I would rather have Diggs and a great tight end than Diggs and a great #2.   That's all true, but it's different from what I was saying, and what Logic said. 

 

In the offense that the Bills have and the offense that the Bills run, a great tight end would not add that much production.   Yes, Kelce would catch more balls than Knox, but Beasley and Sanders would catch fewer.   Would the net be better?   Probably.  Would the difference be meaningful, particularly given who it would cost to get a Kelce.  Probably not.  As someone said, when you have the best passing offense in the league, how much better can you expect it get by adding a player?  

 

It's nice to have a great tight end.  It's nice to have a great QB.  It's nice to have a great wideout.  It's nice to have a great player at every position.   It's nice, but it's unrealistic.  You can't have it all.   You have to make choices.  In the Bills' case, investing in tight end talent is likely to offer a smaller return than investing in other positions.   So, I can see why Beane hasn't chased after a tight end.   Just like, by the way, Polian, who didn't see the need to chase after a top tight end when he had Reed, Lofton, and Beebe.  

54 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I heard some stuff that impacts the locker room - like coming in late, being late for meetings, taking plays off in practice (he certainly did in games), and use of weed.

 

 

Absolutely correct.  Dareus wasn't personally dedicated to his craft, and the best player on the team can't be a leader if he isn't dedicated to doing his best.  One reason Brady was so great was that he was the hardest working player on the Patriots, year after year after year. 

[Kelly the Dog]

13 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I agree with this, but I don't think I said anything that disagreed with it.  I agree Kelce and Hill are better than Diggs and whoever, although Davis may turn out to be Robin to Diggs's Batman.  And I agree that I would rather have Diggs and a great tight end than Diggs and a great #2.   That's all true, but it's different from what I was saying, and what Logic said. 

 

In the offense that the Bills have and the offense that the Bills run, a great tight end would not add that much production.   Yes, Kelce would catch more balls than Knox, but Beasley and Sanders would catch fewer.   Would the net be better?   Probably.  Would the difference be meaningful, particularly given who it would cost to get a Kelce.  Probably not.  As someone said, when you have the best passing offense in the league, how much better can you expect it get by adding a player?  

 

It's nice to have a great tight end.  It's nice to have a great QB.  It's nice to have a great wideout.  It's nice to have a great player at every position.   It's nice, but it's unrealistic.  You can't have it all.   You have to make choices.  In the Bills' case, investing in tight end talent is likely to offer a smaller return than investing in other positions.   So, I can see why Beane hasn't chased after a tight end.   Just like, by the way, Polian, who didn't see the need to chase after a top tight end when he had Reed, Lofton, and Beebe.  

 

It’s not as though The Bills, Daboll, or any team or coordinator doesn’t like to use tight ends. It’s just that there are so few of great ones. If the Bills had Kittle or Kelce their offense would be built around Diggs and the TE, and the TE would get the second most targets. 

[ColoradoBills]

8 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

It’s not as though The Bills, Daboll, or any team or coordinator doesn’t like to use tight ends. It’s just that there are so few of great ones. If the Bills had Kittle or Kelce their offense would be built around Diggs and the TE, and the TE would get the second most targets. 

 

I agree.  If you add how many pass catching TEs also excel at blocking that elite number goes down even more.

I will concede that an elite TE can create mismatches in defenses but the same could be said with having good receivers all in a 5 WR set. 

[HappyDays]

27 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

In the offense that the Bills have and the offense that the Bills run, a great tight end would not add that much production.   Yes, Kelce would catch more balls than Knox, but Beasley and Sanders would catch fewer.   Would the net be better?   Probably.  Would the difference be meaningful, particularly given who it would cost to get a Kelce.  Probably not.  As someone said, when you have the best passing offense in the league, how much better can you expect it get by adding a player?  

 

This is where I disagree. It is similar to the conversations we had about Ertz when trading for him was still a realistic possibility. Many people argued Ertz would take production away from the WRs and it seems like you're saying thing about Kelce. To me adding a player like that would add MORE production, not just replace it. Until the Bills score a TD on 100% of their drives, there is always an opportunity for their offense to become even better. And yes of course that's an unrealistic goal but my point is there is no ceiling on our offensive production. There were times last year when our WRs got shut down (notably the AFCCG) and having an elite TE or RB could have made up for it. Adding Kelce doesn't just mean Beasley would get less targets, it would mean that one plays when Beasley and Diggs are covered there is one more option with a high probability of being open.

[The Dean]

6 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I heard some stuff that impacts the locker room - like coming in late, being late for meetings, taking plays off in practice (he certainly did in games), and use of weed.

 

 

 

 

OK, then he could have been a distraction. I had forgotten about the meeting stuff, and even if the other players love your personality, that can cause issues, as can taking plays off. 

 

But do you really think the "use of weed" is an issue in today's NFL?  I suppose if some think it's part of the reason he is late and takes plays off, it could be. But aren't they just really mad he's late and takes plays off?  I really can't imagine a locker room caring if their teammates use pot, as long as they do their jobs. And aren't dumb enough to fail the test.

 

OK.  You've convinced me to do a 180 on this. I suppose he definately might have been a locker room issue.