Diggs' Drama

[SoonerBillsFan]

4 hours ago, Simon said:

 

It doesn't even have to be boundary talent.

If Kincaid can get his head out, the Bills can stress defenses enough between the hashes to create a lot of opportunities for the slot.

Agreed,  but for him "living here all offseason"  no one is mentioning him in OTA reports

[BillsFanForever19]

58 minutes ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

Agreed,  but for him "living here all offseason"  no one is mentioning him in OTA reports

 

Hilarious timing....

 

 

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

160 targets for Shakir? hey why not 200!

 

a grand total of 2 NFL WRs had 160 or more targets last year. There is no reality where he would get 160 on the Bills or any other team in the league.  

 

These extrapolation exercises are alway pointless. 

I didn’t say give him 160 targets…you said there is no chance he could reach 1200-1400 IF he did.  And clearly that’s a silly premise 

[Mr. WEO]

17 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I didn’t say give him 160 targets…you said there is no chance he could reach 1200-1400 IF he did.  And clearly that’s a silly premise 

 

you are simply providing a math equation.  in his last year in Buffalo, for instance, Davis would have had over 1500 yards with 160 targets.  Last year McConkey would have had 2300 yards, Jameson Williams would have had 2750!

 

so, yes, I agree that 160 targets X 8.21 yards per target = 1313 yards.  not a point worth making

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

you are simply providing a math equation.  in his last year in Buffalo, for instance, Davis would have had over 1500 yards with 160 targets.  Last year McConkey would have had 2300 yards, Jameson Williams would have had 2750!

 

so, yes, I agree that 160 targets X 8.21 yards per target = 1313 yards.  not a point worth making

 

You said there was "no chance" and denied the math equation, I simply corrected the sillyness of the premise there was "no chance".  Its all it was, nothing more, literally referred to it as a "simple math" equation multiple times.  

 

At no point did I advocate for him to get 160 targets, and quite honestly I wouldn't advocate for anyone to get 160 targets again in this offense.  Other people who just want to argue skewed what was said and tried to turn into a bunch of other things...as usual because that is what they always do.

 

 

Edited Friday at 04:20 PM by Alphadawg7

[Sierra Foothills]

On 6/11/2025 at 5:48 PM, nedboy7 said:

I wanna try some pink drugs!  

 

[GunnerBill]

On 6/13/2025 at 5:16 PM, Alphadawg7 said:

 

You said there was "no chance" and denied the math equation, I simply corrected the sillyness of the premise there was "no chance".  Its all it was, nothing more, literally referred to it as a "simple math" equation multiple times.  

 

At no point did I advocate for him to get 160 targets, and quite honestly I wouldn't advocate for anyone to get 160 targets again in this offense.  Other people who just want to argue skewed what was said and tried to turn into a bunch of other things...as usual because that is what they always do.

 

 

 

I think you are slightly talking past each other. What I think @Mr. WEO is saying is impossible is getting Shakir 160 targets. And I sort of agree with him. Could you just throw it at him 160 times to prove a point? Sure. Could you actually find 160 occasions during the season to target him in a way that is going to help the offense? No, I don't think you could. His skillset simply isn't well rounded enough to do that. 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

I think you are slightly talking past each other. What I think @Mr. WEO is saying is impossible is getting Shakir 160 targets. And I sort of agree with him. Could you just throw it at him 160 times to prove a point? Sure. Could you actually find 160 occasions during the season to target him in a way that is going to help the offense? No, I don't think you could. His skillset simply isn't well rounded enough to do that. 

 

He played in 586 offensive snaps last season.  He was targeted 100 times.  Were there 60 more times he could have been targeted?

[SectionC3]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

He played in 586 offensive snaps last season.  He was targeted 100 times.  Were there 60 more times he could have been targeted?

Sure, but we had a highly efficient and effective offense last year.  Why force 60% more targets to anyone?  

[Doc]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

Sure, but we had a highly efficient and effective offense last year.  Why force 60% more targets to anyone?  

 

Not saying "force."  Just whether there were 60 more targets to be had.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

He played in 586 offensive snaps last season.  He was targeted 100 times.  Were there 60 more times he could have been targeted?

 

Josh obviously thought not.

 

How many WRs had at least 586 snaps vs how many got over 160 targets?

 

Allen was clearly forcing targets Diggs's way--look what happened in Digs's yardage over his Buffalo career--all over 150 targets. 350 fewer yards.

[Mr. WEO]

On 6/13/2025 at 12:16 PM, Alphadawg7 said:

 

You said there was "no chance" and denied the math equation, I simply corrected the sillyness of the premise there was "no chance".  Its all it was, nothing more, literally referred to it as a "simple math" equation multiple times.  

 

At no point did I advocate for him to get 160 targets, and quite honestly I wouldn't advocate for anyone to get 160 targets again in this offense.  Other people who just want to argue skewed what was said and tried to turn into a bunch of other things...as usual because that is what they always do.

 

 

 

multiplying his yards per target by an imaginary and impossible number of targets really doesn't make much of an argument.

 

By your thinking, it would make more sense to target Coleman over Shakir.  If Coleman had 160, he would have had over 1500 yards.....

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

Josh obviously thought not.

 

How many WRs had at least 586 snaps vs how many got over 160 targets?

 

Allen was clearly forcing targets Diggs's way--look what happened in Digs's yardage over his Buffalo career--all over 150 targets. 350 fewer yards.

 

The "everybody eats" means no one is being forced targets, but it doesn't mean an equal share.  I'm asking if Shakir was open on 60 more passing plays and Josh just went elsewhere.  Obviously the way the offense went was fine.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

The "everybody eats" means no one is being forced targets, but it doesn't mean an equal share.  I'm asking if Shakir was open on 60 more passing plays and Josh just went elsewhere.  Obviously the way the offense went was fine.

you could ask the same of any WR who has ever played.    WRs are often open yet not actually targeted.  That’s intuitively true.  What’s the point of your question? 

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

The "everybody eats" means no one is being forced targets, but it doesn't mean an equal share.  I'm asking if Shakir was open on 60 more passing plays and Josh just went elsewhere.  Obviously the way the offense went was fine.

 

Simple answer to that - no, he wasn't.

[Doc]

18 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

you could ask the same of any WR who has ever played.    WRs are often open yet not actually targeted.  That’s intuitively true.  What’s the point of your question? 

 

Some are, some aren't.  GB answers it below:

 

12 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Simple answer to that - no, he wasn't.

 

Thank you.

[Mr. WEO]

5 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Some are, some aren't.  GB answers it below:

 

 

Thank you.

 

forget Shakir: Coleman was a better value play.  You should be arguing for him to have gotten 160 targets.

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

forget Shakir: Coleman was a better value play.  You should be arguing for him to have gotten 160 targets.

 

Coleman is a wait-and-see for me. 

[Alphadawg7]

On 6/15/2025 at 8:25 AM, Mr. WEO said:

 

multiplying his yards per target by an imaginary and impossible number of targets really doesn't make much of an argument.

 

By your thinking, it would make more sense to target Coleman over Shakir.  If Coleman had 160, he would have had over 1500 yards.....

 

Remember, I didn't start or make the argument or imaginary numbers...the two of you were discussing if he would or not on Diggs same targets...and all I did was chime in and say that saying "no chance" he could was a silly premise because mathematically is a certainty he would be able to achieve 379 more yards on 60 additional targets, any WR on our roster could and should amass 379+ yards on 60 more targets in this offense. 

 

BUT - I never said he should get that many targets, and as I have said, I don't think any WR should get that many targets in this offense.  I don't think any one player should see more than 120 targets in this spread the ball around offense personally.