Isabella shows moves, will he make the roster?

[BuffaloBill]

 

 

Have the Bills found a steal?  This segment says emphatically “yes.”  

 

To me what is interesting is even Josh noticed the play.

[GunnerBill]

I gave him like 0.1% chance when he arrived. 

 

I dunno I am leaning now towards he could make it. He is going to be the last cut at receiver I reckon but it could easily flip the other side of the line.

[freddyjj]

Remember this is against a  backup LB.  Harty will be the top candidate to run these patterns so Isabella, IF he makes 53, would be a backup in the slot.  

[twist_to_open]

I was waiting for this guy to get his own thread. Seems he's been talked about the most of any player not playing MLB or RG. I'm no expert, but intrigued and hopes he makes it.

[HOUSE]

The Giants will love him.

Another early Christmas gift from Brandon Beane.

[BuffaloBillyG]

McDermott said this week he'd have some opportunities against the Steelers tonight. If he makes the most of them (which includes showing a bit better at KR than last week) he has a shot IMO.

 

I think the Bills would love to not have to use Harty returning kickoffs and let him focus on WR. I think at very worst case scenario for Isabella is he makes the PS and sees a few call ups if Harty misses any time. I do believe at some point he sees the field.

[Ethan in Cleveland]

Get rid of the fullback and keep an extra WR

[Chaos]

12 minutes ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

Get rid of the fullback and keep an extra WR

Murray, Harris, and Josh seem to minimize any need for a fullback

 

[GunnerBill]

Gilliam is a full back but not in a conventional sense and the Bills use him a lot to get teams into big personnel. Add that to the fact you need a full back for when you want to run power in short yardage and goalline. And the fact Gilliam is an excellent STer and can play as a blocking tight end. 

 

He 100% will and should be on this roster

[Chaos]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

Gilliam is a full back but not in a conventional sense and the Bills use him a lot to get teams into big personnel. Add that to the fact you need a full back for when you want to run power in short yardage and goalline. And the fact Gilliam is an excellent STer and can play as a blocking tight end. 

 

He 100% will and should be on this roster

Come playoff time, WR Depth far more important than Gilliam.  Not even really arguable.   There is no chance in a short yardage situation in the playoffs, the ball is going into Gilliams hands. 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

Gilliam is a full back but not in a conventional sense and the Bills use him a lot to get teams into big personnel. Add that to the fact you need a full back for when you want to run power in short yardage and goalline. And the fact Gilliam is an excellent STer and can play as a blocking tight end. 

 

He 100% will and should be on this roster

He will be on the roster but he should absolutely not be on the roster.  I would much rather carry three TE's or an extra OL than a FB.  

He is overpaid and a relic of times gone by. 

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, HOUSE said:

The Giants will love him.

Another early Christmas gift from Brandon Beane.

What more could Daboll want than another sub 5’10 slot receiver only?

[Simon Says]

14 minutes ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

He will be on the roster but he should absolutely not be on the roster.  I would much rather carry three TE's or an extra OL than a FB.  

He is overpaid and a relic of times gone by. 

Pretty sure they WILL keep 3 tight ight ends; Knox, Kincaid and Morris. 

[PBF81]

25 minutes ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

He will be on the roster but he should absolutely not be on the roster.  I would much rather carry three TE's or an extra OL than a FB.  

He is overpaid and a relic of times gone by. 

 

$2M this season for a player that saw an average of 12 snaps/game, never carried the ball, and had 8 receptions.  That diminished as the season wore on, averaging 9 in his last 9 games.  In the playoffs he was on the field for 11 snaps in both games and never had a target or a carry.

 

That's an expensive role-playing blocker.  

 

I wouldn't bet a nickel that he makes it thru Cuts.  I can see him being released and possibly brought back for less, but $2M for what he brings seems like poor management.  

 

I'd also like to watch the plays he did play too see what he had to do.  For a blocker every six plays that never runs the ball and gets one target every other game, I'd like to think that they could come up with another option that doesn't cost $2M.  

 

Just my two cents.  

 

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by PBF81

[Coach Tuesday]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

I gave him like 0.1% chance when he arrived. 

 

I dunno I am leaning now towards he could make it. He is going to be the last cut at receiver I reckon but it could easily flip the other side of the line.

Same here.  What seems to distinguish him from prior WR preseason heroes is his work ethic - by all accounts he’s working his tail off and is “all ball,” he sounds like a Matt Milano ascetic type and McBeane LOVES those.  He has a real shot if he flashes tonight. 

[Chaos]

14 minutes ago, Herb Nightly said:

Pretty sure they WILL keep 3 tight ight ends; Knox, Kincaid and Morris. 

Last December the Bills signed Cole Beasley off the street, and they also signed John Brown.  In the NFL, you need WRs to win down the stretch and win in playoffs.   If the Bills have seven WR's who could contribute in the playoffs, they should keep them all.   If Knox or Kincaid go down, in the playoffs, they will run 1 TE sets, they are not going to plug Morris into either of their spots for any meaningful number of playoff stats.  If Harty, Sherfield, Davis or Diggs go down, the Bills will have to trot someone out play.  

All roster decsions should be based on who do I want in the playoffs, given typical injury situations (other teams have injuries too, I think the Bills were the only playoff teams signing old recievers off the street in Dec of 2022 last year.  I hope the Bills don't put themselves in that position again.  

Ever year is different, but in the playoffs last year would you rather the Bills have had Isiah Hodgkins, Reggie Gilliam, or Quinton Morris on the roster? 

Edited August 19, 2023 by Chaos

[Ethan in Cleveland]

1 minute ago, PBF81 said:

 

$2M this season for a player that saw an average of 12 snaps/game, never carried the ball, and had 8 receptions.  That diminished as the season wow on, averaging 9 in his last 9 games.  In the playoffs he was on the field for 11 snaps in both games and never had a target or a carry.

 

That's an expensive role-playing blocker blocker.  

 

I wouldn't bet a nickel that he makes it thru Cuts.  I can see him being released and possibly brought back for less, but $2M for what he brings seems like poor management.  

 

I'd also like to watch the plays he did play too see what he had to do.  For a blocker every six plays that never runs the ball and gets one target every other game, I'd like to think that they could come up with another option that doesn't cost $2M.  

 

Just my two cents.  

 

 

It's incredibly poor cap management. He is a vet minimum guy at best if you want him on the team. 

Last year they had Sweeney who was useless and didn't dress most of the year. 

This year if they keep Morris they will have three TEs that dress on game day. No room for a FB in that scenario. Much better to dress an extra OL, WR, or DB. A backup guard can play full back in the goal line situation.  Kincaid can line up there which he can then be an actual threat in the pass game with or without motion.

There was a time and a place for a great fullback. That time is gone and Gilliam is not great at anything. 

[PBF81]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

I gave him like 0.1% chance when he arrived. 

 

I dunno I am leaning now towards he could make it. He is going to be the last cut at receiver I reckon but it could easily flip the other side of the line.

 

38 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

Gilliam is a full back but not in a conventional sense and the Bills use him a lot to get teams into big personnel. Add that to the fact you need a full back for when you want to run power in short yardage and goalline. And the fact Gilliam is an excellent STer and can play as a blocking tight end. 

 

He 100% will and should be on this roster

 

I'm confused, you're 100% confident he'll make the cut at the $2M he's slated to get?  

 

 

[Chaos]

1 minute ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

A backup guard can play full back in the goal line situation.  Kincaid can line up there which he can then be an actual threat in the pass game

I think the Eagles pretty clearly established how you run goaline plays under the current NFL rules.  It does not involve a fullback. 

[GunnerBill]

36 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Come playoff time, WR Depth far more important than Gilliam.  Not even really arguable.   There is no chance in a short yardage situation in the playoffs, the ball is going into Gilliams hands. 

 

Nobody is arguing you give him the ball but you need a full back in those big personnel situations. 

[PBF81]

2 minutes ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

It's incredibly poor cap management. He is a vet minimum guy at best if you want him on the team. 

Last year they had Sweeney who was useless and didn't dress most of the year. 

This year if they keep Morris they will have three TEs that dress on game day. No room for a FB in that scenario. Much better to dress an extra OL, WR, or DB. A backup guard can play full back in the goal line situation.  Kincaid can line up there which he can then be an actual threat in the pass game with or without motion.

There was a time and a place for a great fullback. That time is gone and Gilliam is not great at anything. 

 

Common sense right there!  👍👍

 

 

[NewEra]

He looked good vs the colts.  If he keeps it up, I could see him sticking

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

 

I'm confused, you're 100% confident he'll make the cut at the $2M he's slated to get?  

 

 

 

Gilliam will make it. I am 100% confident. The other comment is in respect of Isabella. 

[NoSaint]

2 hours ago, freddyjj said:

Remember this is against a  backup LB.  Harty will be the top candidate to run these patterns so Isabella, IF he makes 53, would be a backup in the slot.  

correct.

 

I could very easily see him as a PS guy even to keep in the system in case guys get nicked up. 
 

I won’t be shocked if he’s WR6 but WR3/4 still seems beyond unlikely 

[GunnerBill]

34 minutes ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

He will be on the roster but he should absolutely not be on the roster.  I would much rather carry three TE's or an extra OL than a FB.  

He is overpaid and a relic of times gone by. 

 

You are completely wrong. But fans don't like fullbacks, blocking tight ends or special teamers. It's a tale as old as time. What they don't realise is they should love Gilliam because he turns 3 guys they wouldn't want on the roster into 1. 

[PBF81]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

Gilliam will make it. I am 100% confident. The other comment is in respect of Isabella. 

 

I'll make a friendly wager with you that Gilliam doesn't make it at his current contact, if he does, he'll be brought back at something much closer to vet min.  

 

He defines expendable.  

 

 

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

You are completely wrong. But fans don't like fullbacks, blocking tight ends or special teamers. It's a tale as old as time. What they don't realise is they should love Gilliam because he turns 3 guys they wouldn't want on the roster into 1. 

 

Then how come he's hardly ever on the field?  

 

And what's so special about him as a FB that can't be found on waivers after cuts?  

 

 

[The Firebaugh Kid]

I think he makes it. 

[Ethan in Cleveland]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

You are completely wrong. But fans don't like fullbacks, blocking tight ends or special teamers. It's a tale as old as time. What they don't realise is they should love Gilliam because he turns 3 guys they wouldn't want on the roster into 1. 

If he was good you would be correct. But he is not. He is not a good blocking FB. He is not a good pass threat. And despite people saying he is the third TE, I can not recall a single play last year that he lined up as third TE. I admit I could be wrong about the third point. 

I actually like FBs like Sam Gash that are a legit threat in the pass game. Don't care about their run blocking. The college game never uses a FB and the NFL game is getting closer to that as well. 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

I'll make a friendly wager with you that Gilliam doesn't make it at his current contact, if he does, he'll be brought back at something much closer to vet min.  

 

He defines expendable.  

 

He 100% does not define expendable. He does 3 jobs for them. I am not guaranteeing he makes it at his current deal because he is at $666k dead money and not subject to waivers so a potential candidate for the old "cut and wait in the car park while we make other roster moves and then bring you back" tactic that Beane has used multiple times. 

 

But he will 100% make this roster. 

1 minute ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

If he was good you would be correct. But he is not. He is not a good blocking FB. He is not a good pass threat. And despite people saying he is the third TE, I can not recall a single play last year that he lined up as third TE. I admit I could be wrong about the third point. 

I actually like FBs like Sam Gash that are a legit threat in the pass game. Don't care about their run blocking. The college game never uses a FB and the NFL game is getting closer to that as well. 

 

He is good. You are wrong. Oh and he played 50 snaps at TE in 2022. 81 as a fullback. 37 in the slot. 19 split wide. They have actually used him HEAVILY in the last two regular season victories over the Chiefs because they really struggle to work out what personnel to come out in when Gilliam moves all over the place. Most fans totally undervalue what he offers. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by GunnerBill

[PBF81]

14 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

He 100% does not define expendable. He does 3 jobs for them. I am not guaranteeing he makes it at his current deal because he is at $666k dead money and not subject to waivers so a potential candidate for the old "cut and wait in the car park while we make other roster moves and then bring you back" tactic that Beane has used multiple times. 

 

But he will 100% make this roster. 

 

I don't disagree as he's the only FB on the roster, so if they keep one, he's it, but I'd wager against it, heavily, at his current contact value of $2M.  

 

If they really want a FB he's the only option now.  

 

But it's a bit of a reach to think that there won't be another FB on the market after cuts that can do what Gilliam does.  To imagine otherwise it's too suggest that he's somehow special.  

 

Are you saying that he is special?  If not, then that seems to fit the definition of expendable.  

 

Agree with you on Isabella however.  

 

We'll find out soon.  

 

 

Edited August 19, 2023 by PBF81

[DCofNC]

Based on last game alone, I find it hard to believe he’s no the starting in the slot come week one.  That said, it was one game and I have literally zero clue what’s happened in practice.

[BuffaloBillyG]

21 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

You are completely wrong. But fans don't like fullbacks, blocking tight ends or special teamers. It's a tale as old as time. What they don't realise is they should love Gilliam because he turns 3 guys they wouldn't want on the roster into 1. 

Gilliam is a victim of what I call FFBDS. Fantasy Football Derangement Syndrome. 

 

If a guy isn't putting up stats...he's worthless. However in the real world of football played on the grass and turf every team needs those guys that do the dirty work. Eat up ST snaps. Play several roles on GameDay that go overlooked. Guys like Gilliam, Neal, Matakevich ect aren't ever going to be stars but they are PARAMOUNT to play winning football even in this day and age. 

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Are you saying that he is special?

 

 

Yes, in his flexibility and versatility. How many full backs can legitimately play inline as a blocking tight end? How many could even allow you to flex them into the slot and / or split wide? He also plays on every single special team and does so very effectively. I don't argue that he is elite at any one thing but there are not many full backs who offer that genuine versatility and flexibility that Gilliam does. You are really talking Ricard and Juszczyk in terms of multiple usage in the offense (they are both much better pure fullbacks than Gilliam, no question) and neither of those play special teams. 

 

EDIT: this is why I say haters of full backs, blocking tight ends and STers should love Gilliam. Because if they cut him they need three players to replace him. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by GunnerBill

[Chaos]

32 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Nobody is arguing you give him the ball but you need a full back in those big personnel situations. 

The Eagles say hello. 

[GunnerBill]

13 minutes ago, Chaos said:

The Eagles say hello. 

 

They kept two blocking tight ends instead. Agree they rarely lined anyone up at full back - though they did occasionally use either Calcaterra or Stoll in the backfield - but they kept an extra blocker on the roster and brought him in on short yardage... they just did it with a tight end instead. Kinda my point proven - if you cut Gilliam you are not replacing him with a "skill" player. You are replacing him with someone primarily on the roster to block and play STs. And fans would moan about that player, the way they moaned about Lee Smith. The way they moan about Matakevich. 

 

The problem is most fans simply don't understand the minutiae of the game sufficiently to see the value of those types of player. They want all the spots going to guys who will put up stats. 

Edited August 19, 2023 by GunnerBill

[Cash]

38 minutes ago, Ethan in Cleveland said:

If he was good you would be correct. But he is not. He is not a good blocking FB. He is not a good pass threat. And despite people saying he is the third TE, I can not recall a single play last year that he lined up as third TE. I admit I could be wrong about the third point. 

I actually like FBs like Sam Gash that are a legit threat in the pass game. Don't care about their run blocking. The college game never uses a FB and the NFL game is getting closer to that as well. 

Did you mean Larry Centers? Because Gash was the epitome of an old school FB - phenomenal lead blocker in the run game, and not much else. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, twist_to_open said:

I was waiting for this guy to get his own thread. Seems he's been talked about the most of any player not playing MLB or RG. I'm no expert, but intrigued and hopes he makes it.

 

why wait?

 

This guy probably has been the most hyped (here) addition this off season--especially since camp and the Colts game.

 

He has a chance.

[Doc]

1 hour ago, PBF81 said:

$2M this season for a player that saw an average of 12 snaps/game, never carried the ball, and had 8 receptions.  That diminished as the season wore on, averaging 9 in his last 9 games.  In the playoffs he was on the field for 11 snaps in both games and never had a target or a carry.

 

That's an expensive role-playing blocker.  

 

I wouldn't bet a nickel that he makes it thru Cuts.  I can see him being released and possibly brought back for less, but $2M for what he brings seems like poor management.  

 

I'd also like to watch the plays he did play too see what he had to do.  For a blocker every six plays that never runs the ball and gets one target every other game, I'd like to think that they could come up with another option that doesn't cost $2M.  

 

Just my two cents. 

 

No chance.  He'd be with the Giants in a millisecond.

[PBF81]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

No chance.  He'd be with the Giants in a millisecond.

 

I can't tell if you're being humorous or not.  

 

Either way, we'll find out soon enough.  

 

Would the Giants pay more than we would?  I can see them grabbing a player we cut, permanently, but if you're Gilliam and the choice is Buffalo or NY (either team), to me that choice is easy, particularly given that Allen is here.  

 

All I'm saying is that I don't envision the team carrying Gilliam at the $2M+ he's currently on contract for.  

 

 

[Doc]

1 minute ago, PBF81 said:

I can't tell if you're being humorous or not.  

 

Either way, we'll find out soon enough.  

 

Would the Giants pay more than we would?  I can see them grabbing a player we cut, permanently, but if you're Gilliam and the choice is Buffalo or NY (either team), to me that choice is easy, particularly given that Allen is here.  

 

All I'm saying is that I don't envision the team carrying Gilliam at the $2M+ he's currently on contract for. 

 

Completely serious.  As for the bolded, they'd add him to the roster whereas the Bills would put him on the PS.  So yes.