Marquez Valdes-Scantling meeting with the Bills (UPDATE: Signed)

[HappyDays]

12 minutes ago, Maine-iac said:

We held the ball for 37 minutes and almost beat the SB champs with Klein as our starting MLB.  The offense was fine without a WR1.  

 

I just disagree that the offense was fine. Like I said earlier it was an offense to get out of a game against a superior opponent, it wasn't a sustainable offense that lasts for a 17+ game season. I worry we are going to have to make that our primary form of offense this year and it will put a lot of hard miles on Allen. I'm not convinced Brady is an offensive genius that can get the most out of a middling group of weapons.

 

But you know what we had this exact discussion last year and I'm already sick of it this year. I'll let it play out. My one big reason for optimism is Kincaid. He was my draft crush last year before the Bills took him and I love his potential in year two. If he steps up to be effectively our #1 WR this year like Kelce with the Chiefs I'll probably be satisfied with the group overall.

 

Edited May 15 by HappyDays

[MasterStrategist]

9 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

We didn't have a WR1 in the playoffs last year and it was a severe handicap in our season ending loss.

Do you honestly think we had a #1 for the 2nd half of LY?

 

Diggs wasn't playing that way, injury or otherwise; IMO.

 

We managed to be successful and go 6-1

[OldTimer1960]

1 hour ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Yeah MVS is washed up but him being a complementary piece isn't the issue.

 

The issue is not having a WR1 or even an established, proven WR2.

 

How it pertains to MVS is that the strategy appears to be "hoping" that 4 veteran receivers who are all coming off seasons where their season's production declined will combine with a low usage vet and second round pick to "in-aggregate" be a sustitute for Diggs and Davis and then some.

 

As has been said before...........hope is not a strategy.  

 

 

 

 

So trying to score a TD with 1:55 or so left on the clock was trying to win it with no time left?   Wtf are you talking about?

 

 

I think the strategy is that this is a reset year and they know they have extra picks to address getting a top WR next offseason.  There was no way they could address all of their needs this year without trading picks from next year that they will need to finish the reset.

[SCBills]

1 minute ago, OldTimer1960 said:

I think the strategy is that this is a reset year and they know they have extra picks to address getting a top WR next offseason.  There was no way they could address all of their needs this year without trading picks from next year that they will need to finish the reset.

 

If you're going to go in on a big investment at WR, either via FA or a trade next year, why wait?

 

That's the part I don't really get. 

 

Why purposefully leave that bullet out of the chamber this year, in one of Allen's prime years, if you plan on doing it anyway next year. 

 

To what?... Save your RD2 pick and provide a slightly cleaner cap because you didn't have to make room/push money down the road by bringing said player in this year?

 

To me that seems illogical.  

 

If you're looking to make that move next year, you should explore making it this year.  

 

If you want to see how Coleman, Shakir and Kincaid show out this year before seeing if that move is necessary, then you wait. 

[HappyDays]

4 minutes ago, MasterStrategist said:

Do you honestly think we had a #1 for the 2nd half of LY?

 

Diggs wasn't playing that way, injury or otherwise; IMO.

 

We managed to be successful and go 6-1

 

Our offense is good enough to win a lot of games in the regular season, no disagreement from me there.

[oldmanfan]

50 minutes ago, SCBills said:

I disagree.  
 

We could be a juggernaut if everything goes as planned, but we have a lot of what-ifs right now on Offense due to a lack of a true WR1. 

 

If we traded for Aiyuk or Metcalf, I honestly don’t know how anyone stops this Offense. 
 

I firmly believe we will have a Top 12 OL.  Kromer is one of the best in the biz and we have a lot of talented pieces & guys who have been in the system for multiple years on the Offensive Line. 

You give Allen the following:

 

RB1 - Cook

RB2 - Davis

RB3 - Johnson

TE1 - Kincaid

TE2 - Knox

TE3 - Morris

 

FB - Gilliam

 

WR1 - DK Metcalf 

WR2 - Keon Coleman

WR3 - Curtis Samuel

WR4 - Khalil Shakir

WR5 - MVS

 

Sheesh… Good Luck  

A couple things.  First the definition of a #1 WR depends on who is doing the defining.  Second, any offense comes down to play design and scheme and such.  Third as KC has shown your best receiver can be a TE.

[MasterStrategist]

Just now, HappyDays said:

 

Our offense is good enough to win a lot of games in the regular season, no disagreement from me there.

Next question then, so do you think our offense was good enough to beat KC?

 

We put up 24 points and should have been more.

 

I posted this to you before, but that was the most points KC gave up to any opponent this postseason.  

 

KC Opp: Dolphins (1st yards/2nd points), Bills(4th yards/6th points), Ravens(6th yards/4th points), 49ers (2nd yards/3rd points).

 

I'd say those same teams above had lethal offenses, and better defenses/healthier than ours come playoffs (minus Miami).

 

So again, not sure why we keep saying our offense is good enough in regular season...why not playoffs?  Haven't we performed well in playoffs (minus Cincy game)?

 

 

[SCBills]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

A couple things.  First the definition of a #1 WR depends on who is doing the defining.  Second, any offense comes down to play design and scheme and such.  Third as KC has shown your best receiver can be a TE.

 

Do I think Kincaid has Kelce potential?  Yes.

 

Do I think people need to stop using KC/Kelce as blueprint?  Yes.

 

It's like how every raw, ultra athletic, big arm QB can now be Josh Allen.  Just because it worked for us, doesn't mean it's a blueprint.  Josh Allen may be the most purely gifted QB the NFL has ever seen.  Kelce may be the best TE in the history of the league. 

[Rocky Landing]

18 minutes ago, SCBills said:

 

If you're going to go in on a big investment at WR, either via FA or a trade next year, why wait?

 

That's the part I don't really get. 

 

Why purposefully leave that bullet out of the chamber this year, in one of Allen's prime years, if you plan on doing it anyway next year. 

 

To what?... Save your RD2 pick and provide a slightly cleaner cap because you didn't have to make room/push money down the road by bringing said player in this year?

 

To me that seems illogical.  

 

If you're looking to make that move next year, you should explore making it this year.  

 

If you want to see how Coleman, Shakir and Kincaid show out this year before seeing if that move is necessary, then you wait. 

How much trade capital do we really have, though? Fans act like Brandon Aiyuk, and DK Metcalf are just sitting on a shelf waiting to be sold. Should we have mortgaged the future in the draft a la Sammy Watkins? The Diggs trade worked out for us spectacularly, but Diggs wasn't even the Vikings #1WR at the time, and was reported to be a locker room distraction, complete with his signature tweets. But google trade rumors for either Metcalf, or Aiyuk, and articles with speculation involving multiple teams will come up. And neither of those players have moved... at least yet...

 

June 1st is approaching, and we'll see what happens. But even after this WR-rich draft, the competition for a stud WR will be robust.

 

 

Edited May 15 by Rocky Landing

[SCBills]

2 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

How much trade capital do we really have, though? Fans act like Brandon Aiyuk, and DK Metcalf are just sitting on a shelf waiting to be sold. Should we have mortgaged the future a la Sammy Watkins? The Diggs trade worked out for us spectacularly, but Diggs wasn't even the Vikings #1WR at the time, and was reported to be a locker room distraction, complete with his signature tweets. But google trade rumors for either Metcalf, or Aiyuk, and articles with speculation involving multiple teams will come up. And neither of those players have moved... at least yet...

 

June 1st is approaching, and we'll see what happens. But even after this WR-rich draft, the competition for a stud WR will be robust.

 

We do have the most draft capital of any team in 2025.  

 

Our RD2 and a RD4 (given we should have three) is where I'd think teams would listen.  Especially given the fact that most of these WR's won't actually see Free Agency next year.  We go through the same song and dance and they all end up traded or re-signed. 

[oldmanfan]

16 minutes ago, SCBills said:

 

Do I think Kincaid has Kelce potential?  Yes.

 

Do I think people need to stop using KC/Kelce as blueprint?  Yes.

 

It's like how every raw, ultra athletic, big arm QB can now be Josh Allen.  Just because it worked for us, doesn't mean it's a blueprint.  Josh Allen may be the most purely gifted QB the NFL has ever seen.  Kelce may be the best TE in the history of the league. 

Not saying Kincaid is as good as Kelce.  Only that he could be the #1 option for Allen

[HappyDays]

20 minutes ago, MasterStrategist said:

Next question then, so do you think our offense was good enough to beat KC?

 

No. It wasn't good enough, as evidenced by the fact that we lost... We needed to win a shootout. Literally score a TD on every drive, that's what we need our offense to do. If we had championship caliber defensive coaching it would have been good enough. But we don't have that.

 

I'll admit it feels silly arguing from this perspective. It's insane on the face of it to say we need our offense to score a TD every time we hold the ball in order to beat a championship contender in the playoffs. But I mean, that's clearly obviously true right? That's pretty much what we would have needed to do to win each of our last three playoff losses. That's why I keep saying I don't care if the offense is ranked 5th and leads us to 11 regular season wins. That means nothing to me. We need probably the very best offense in football so that when we inevitably get in a shootout in the playoffs, we have a chance to win it. Maybe we could even steamroll our way to a #1 seed and that would set up a much more favorable path.

 

All I know is trying to build a dominant offensive juggernaut is the one thing that we haven't even tried to do since 2020. I'm ready for a different strategy because what we've been doing isn't working.

 

Edited May 15 by HappyDays

[Shaw66]

40 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

Maybe it's the homer in me, but that does look like one helluva roster...

 

It's unclear if we even have the capital to land either of those guys. If we did, it would surely be steep, and our cap situation is not the best. Is spending that much on a single player (and I assume the cost would be considerably higher than what we paid for Von Miller?) a sound strategy? The Bills aren't the only team that might covet players like Metcalf, and Aiyuk. And neither of them have moved.

 

Of course, there is that June 1st, Tre White cut coming up...

It sure seems like the 49ers will want to move a receiver.  They took a receiver in the first round, and it's a perfect time to shed some salary.   Deebo's style is like Curtis's, so I don't think the Bills would be willing to pay for Deebo.  But Aiyuk would make all this MVS and Claypool talk superfluous.  Aiyuk would make the receiver room awesome. 

[MasterStrategist]

7 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

No. It wasn't good enough, as evidenced by the fact that we lost... We needed to win a shootout. Literally score a TD on every drive, that's what we need our offense to do. If we had championship caliber defensive coaching it would have been good enough. But we don't have that.

 

I'll admit it feels silly arguing from this perspective. It's insane on the face of it to say we need our offense to score a TD every time we hold the ball in order to beat a championship contender in the playoff. But I mean, that's clearly obviously true right? That's pretty much what we would have needed to do to win each of our last three playoff losses. That's why I keep saying I don't care if the offense is ranked 5th and leads us to 11 regular season wins. That means nothing to me. We need probably the very best offense in football so that when we inevitably get in a shootout in the playoffs, we have a chance to win it. Maybe we could even steamroll our way to a #1 seed and that would set up a much more favorable path.

 

All I know is trying to build a dominant offensive juggernaut is the one thing that we haven't even tried to do since 2020. I'm ready for a different strategy because what we've been doing isn't working.

 

I just think this is over the top.  It's just not realistic to expect our offense to be "perfect", no mistakes by Josh/etc.  The offense was pretty much perfect in the Pats win, but that was a historic feat.

 

More realistically, we need our defense to get stops.  I know we've discussed this and share different opinions, so we don't need to revisit.

 

I just see things differently, but appreciate the civil discussion.

[Shaw66]

44 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I just disagree that the offense was fine. Like I said earlier it was an offense to get out of a game against a superior opponent, it wasn't a sustainable offense that lasts for a 17+ game season. I worry we are going to have to make that our primary form of offense this year and it will put a lot of hard miles on Allen. I'm not convinced Brady is an offensive genius that can get the most out of a middling group of weapons.

 

But you know what we had this exact discussion last year and I'm already sick of it this year. I'll let it play out. My one big reason for optimism is Kincaid. He was my draft crush last year before the Bills took him and I love his potential in year two. If he steps up to be effectively our #1 WR this year like Kelce with the Chiefs I'll probably be satisfied with the group overall.

 

This all makes a lot of sense.  Where you and I disagree is that you seem to think that with a great receiver room, it doesn't matter if you have just an okay offensive coordinator.  I don't think talent can save mediocre coaching.  

 

If Brady is very good at his job, the Bills have enough fire power at receiver to win it all.  A better receiver added to the mix would help, but if Brady is just another Dorsey, a shiny new receiver won't matter. 

[Rocky Landing]

2 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

It sure seems like the 49ers will want to move a receiver.  They took a receiver in the first round, and it's a perfect time to shed some salary.   Deebo's style is like Curtis's, so I don't think the Bills would be willing to pay for Deebo.  But Aiyuk would make all this MVS and Claypool talk superfluous.  Aiyuk would make the receiver room awesome. 

But will that receiver that they will want to move be Aiyuk? Their SB loss must still be stinging. I have a hard time believing they're going to trade away the guy who caught for over 1,300 yards if they have aspirations of returning to the SB.

[SWATeam]

13 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

No. It wasn't good enough, as evidenced by the fact that we lost... We needed to win a shootout. Literally score a TD on every drive, that's what we need our offense to do. If we had championship caliber defensive coaching it would have been good enough. But we don't have that.

 

I'll admit it feels silly arguing from this perspective. It's insane on the face of it to say we need our offense to score a TD every time we hold the ball in order to beat a championship contender in the playoffs. But I mean, that's clearly obviously true right? That's pretty much what we would have needed to do to win each of our last three playoff losses. That's why I keep saying I don't care if the offense is ranked 5th and leads us to 11 regular season wins. That means nothing to me. We need probably the very best offense in football so that when we inevitably get in a shootout in the playoffs, we have a chance to win it. Maybe we could even steamroll our way to a #1 seed and that would set up a much more favorable path.

 

All I know is trying to build a dominant offensive juggernaut is the one thing that we haven't even tried to do since 2020. I'm ready for a different strategy because what we've been doing isn't working.

 

Reality just doesn't bear this out.  Last year KC had 9 drives and scored 5 times, two of which were FG's.  They were 1-5 on third down.  Cin also scored 5 times on 9 drives with two of those scores being FG's while we managed a grand total of 10 points.  2021 KC game wasn't a score fest until the end, with the Bills D also forcing 5 third down stops.

 

 

[Shaw66]

20 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

No. It wasn't good enough, as evidenced by the fact that we lost... We needed to win a shootout. Literally score a TD on every drive, that's what we need our offense to do. If we had championship caliber defensive coaching it would have been good enough. But we don't have that.

 

I'll admit it feels silly arguing from this perspective. It's insane on the face of it to say we need our offense to score a TD every time we hold the ball in order to beat a championship contender in the playoffs. But I mean, that's clearly obviously true right? That's pretty much what we would have needed to do to win each of our last three playoff losses. That's why I keep saying I don't care if the offense is ranked 5th and leads us to 11 regular season wins. That means nothing to me. We need probably the very best offense in football so that when we inevitably get in a shootout in the playoffs, we have a chance to win it. Maybe we could even steamroll our way to a #1 seed and that would set up a much more favorable path.

 

All I know is trying to build a dominant offensive juggernaut is the one thing that we haven't even tried to do since 2020. I'm ready for a different strategy because what we've been doing isn't working.

 

Well, I find this very persuasive, until I look at the career playoff stats of Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes.   Mahomes has played 18 playoff games, Josh has 10.   Mahomes has almost exactly twice as many yards, twice as many TDs, and twice as many INTs.  Josh's passer rating is 100, Mahomes is 105. 

 

You know what that says to me?   It says the difference between the two teams is on the defensive side of the ball.   The Chiefs' approach is NOT to make their offense completely unstoppable.  It's to have Mahomes plus a defense that wins in the playoffs.  

6 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

But will that receiver that they will want to move be Aiyuk? Their SB loss must still be stinging. I have a hard time believing they're going to trade away the guy who caught for over 1,300 yards if they have aspirations of returning to the SB.

Oh, I have no idea what they'll actually do.  All I'm saying is that if you look at the roster, there is at least an argument about why they'd want to move one of the veteran receivers.  They may or may not be shopping a receiver, and the receiver may or may not be Aiyuk.  I'm just looking at it strictly from the Bills' perspective - if I could add a receiver who MIGHT be available, the receivers who MIGHT be available are Metcalf, Samuel, and Aiyuk, and Aiyuk is the only one I'd want.  

[FireChans]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, I find this very persuasive, until I look at the career playoff stats of Josh Allen and Patrick Mahomes.   Mahomes has played 18 playoff games, Josh has 10.   Mahomes has almost exactly twice as many yards, twice as many TDs, and twice as many INTs.  Josh's passer rating is 100, Mahomes is 105. 

 

You know what that says to me?   It says the difference between the two teams is on the defensive side of the ball.   The Chiefs' approach is NOT to make their offense completely unstoppable.  It's to have Mahomes plus a defense that wins in the playoffs.  

Oh, I have no idea what they'll actually do.  All I'm saying is that if you look at the roster, there is at least an argument about why they'd want to move one of the veteran receivers.  They may or may not be shopping a receiver, and the receiver may or may not be Aiyuk.  I'm just looking at it strictly from the Bills' perspective - if I could add a receiver who MIGHT be available, the receivers who MIGHT be available are Metcalf, Samuel, and Aiyuk, and Aiyuk is the only one I'd want.  

How many more first and second round picks do we need to throw at the defense before we agree the strategy isn’t working?

[Mat68]

3 minutes ago, FireChans said:

How many more first and second round picks do we need to throw at the defense before we agree the strategy isn’t working?

As many as it takes.  Oliver, Rousseau, and Bernard are 3 of the best players on the defense and all were day 1 and 2 picks.