Is there an NFL team with a weaker WR group than the Bills?

[Alphadawg7]

5 hours ago, Pete said:

We’ve covered this a few times.  Bills offense scored 62 TD.  Cook had 18. Josh ran for 12 TD, and caught 1 TD. Ty and Ray combined for 9 TD.  That totals 40 TDs, or 65% of all offensive TDs.  
 

Mac Hollins led all Bills WR with 5 TD.  Amari had 2 TD.  7 TD out the door, or 11%.
 

So that there is 76% of Bills 62 touchdowns in 2024.

 

Josh and Running Backs are doing all of the heavy lifting(and the offensive line).

 

Time for the 24% to step up, and start pulling their load.  

 

Weird, I could have sworn a TD was worth 6 points regardless of who scored it.  

[Alphadawg7]

3 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that this is a major part of the disconnect. Just because he doesn’t “need” a number 1 doesn’t mean that the offense wouldn’t be better with one. That’s obvious. The question becomes, can they keep winning with a bottom 5 WR room? We all hope so. Would they be better off if you plugged Metcalf at the top of the depth chart (for example)? Of course they would.
 

You need to remember that the Bills were +24 in turnover differential last year. No other team was more than +16. Other than that no other team was more than +12!! That’s a massive gap. If the Bills even fall to 3rd best in turnover differential we are talking about almost an extra turnover a game that they either commit on offense or don’t get on defense. This is often lost in these conversations. The Bills had the fewest negative plays ever (turnovers and sacks). We shouldn’t expect that again or even close to it. When that regresses, even if it’s still good, will the playmakers around Josh be good enough to overcome it? 

 

Definitely fair to not expect the same historical level in terms of fewest negative plays.  If I was to make a counter point, it would be that it doesn't also mean you should by default expect a significant reversal either.  

 

Regarding our TO differential, I think the bigger concern for me is how dependent our defense was on getting turnovers, and that is a much harder thing to replicate IMO.  Bills defense was bottom of the league in 3rd down conversions and first downs allowed.  Any drop in those turnovers and that defense would have been putrid.  

 

Good news is they really reset the D this year, so going into next year the runway is clear to be aggressive at WR if needed with fewer expected holes next offseason.  And knowing Beane, if someone comes available during the season, he has shown he would be aggressive and make an in season move if he felt it was the right move.  

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

I thought you and I had reached a point where we could discuss things collegiality.  But I guess I was wrong.  My very first sentence I said if Beane had traded for Metcalf or swung a deal for a guy like Jefferson, what did I say?  Fine.  I then just threw out a theoretical on how that might affect the offense as constructed by Brady, and you give me this.

 

Let me know if you want to be collegial or not.  If so, great.  If not then let’s just ignore each other’s posts.

You asked a question and I answered. Having better players isn’t a bad thing. If the Bills had a 1 and threw him the ball 8 times a game and that meant 1 less target for Moore, Palmer and Coleman, I wouldn’t care. Over the course of the year they’d each see 15 less targets, or whatever, and an elite receiver adds those 45, the Bills will be better.

Edited 1 hour ago by Kirby Jackson

[stinky finger]

2 hours ago, Mikie2times said:

It can be both right? I know people are thinking with these defensive additions and the prolific offense we just won't play in anymore close games. But in all likelihood we will have to win at least one game by scoring with under 2 minutes left if we want to win a Super Bowl. Most teams have at least one game like that and sometimes two while they make a run. We have lost back to back years after the defense failed AND the offense failed in that situation. Offensively that failure was largely our skill position players not making critical plays. It is both things. The more nuclear of the two WAS the defense. Just sort of irritating to have so many people act as if the other problem doesn't exist because we score a lot of points in lower leverage spots. I could really care less how many points we score in the regular season or even how many points we score in the playoffs. Do we have the horses to execute in a high leverage spot with the game on the line with the Lombardi on the line? 

 

Sure, it can be both. But it really isn't both. The D has either struggled to get off the field or failed to get to the QB in key situations. Their approach to the draft and FA is no coincidence. 

[Kirby Jackson]

51 minutes ago, HamptonBillsfan said:

Historical output with bad QBs and offensive attacks doesn’t compare to Josh and our O-line. I agree we’re not expecting our two wideouts to be the Bengals receivers but expect Moore, Palmer and our 2nd year receiver (Coleman) and our 1st round drafted TE (Kincaid) to be markedly improved.

I agree that they will be improved. I’m asking if the regression in terms of negative plays is greater than their improvement? 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Definitely fair to not expect the same historical level in terms of fewest negative plays.  If I was to make a counter point, it would be that it doesn't also mean you should by default expect a significant reversal either.  

 

Regarding our TO differential, I think the bigger concern for me is how dependent our defense was on getting turnovers, and that is a much harder thing to replicate IMO.  Bills defense was bottom of the league in 3rd down conversions and first downs allowed.  Any drop in those turnovers and that defense would have been putrid.  

 

Good news is they really reset the D this year, so going into next year the runway is clear to be aggressive at WR if needed with fewer expected holes next offseason.  And knowing Beane, if someone comes available during the season, he has shown he would be aggressive and make an in season move if he felt it was the right move.  

That’s kind of what I think Alpha. They’ll get less turnovers but more stops. I wonder what that does to average drive start? I have no idea but the improved defense will definitely help.

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I agree that they will be improved. I’m asking if the regression in terms of negative plays is greater than their improvement? 

Pry not but if it can even come close to last year we're already in a better position given how heavily we invested in defense this off season.  I know it's said every off-season but getting the #1 seed is vital for obvious reasons.  Especially with on paper the 5th easiest schedule based off over/under betting odds.  Our division has never been weaker.  Almost all the tough games this year (Chiefs, Eagles, Bengals, Ravens, Bucs) will be played at home.  Houston's pry are toughest road game but we'd pry be favored right now.  Barring an injury to Allen there's no excuses to not get the #1 seed imo..  It's the one situational variable that we haven't had the last five years in the playoffs.

[Mikie2times]

1 hour ago, stinky finger said:

 

Sure, it can be both. But it really isn't both. The D has either struggled to get off the field or failed to get to the QB in key situations. Their approach to the draft and FA is no coincidence. 

We had the ball with under 2 minutes back to back years and a chance to take the lead and did nothing. You can pretend that means nothing if you want. You can pretend that these defensive additions will prevent us from that scenario again. You can pretend this group of skilled guys are the type to elevate us in the final moments vs the best in the game. Any degree of logic points to none of that being true. Still doesn’t mean we didn’t need defensive help

more.