folz Posted 17 hours ago Posted 17 hours ago (edited) 12 hours ago, FireChans said: Friendly reminder they play more games now and the 2020 offense scored more PPG than the 2024 team. I personally think you overrating the Bills WRs and weapons in particular. James Cook is very good. Ty Johnson has some niche skills. Our “above average” tight end grouping has probably the worst contract on the Bills in Dawson Knox (a guy they recently almost cut outright). Hopefully, we never find out, but personally I think in a “contender off” with the Chiefs, Eagles, Niners, Lions, Rams, Ravens, we comfortably have the weakest roster outside of QB. And it certain comps, it’s not really even close. It's a fair point about the NFL changing to a 17-game schedule in 2021---and even in 2022 they only played 16 regular season games (because of the Damar Hamlin situation)---but, even factoring that in, the team still did very well last year in comparison (as far as scoring points; see below). Now, in 2020, Stefon Diggs had 1,535 yards and 8 TDs; Beasley had 967 yards and 4 TDs; and Gabe Davis had 599 yards and 7 TDs. A true #1 WR, one of the best slot guys in the game, and a good/above average #2 outside guy. Kind of the traditional set-up in the more modern passing league. That year, the team passed for 4,620 yards, while the team gained 1,723 yards on the ground (6,343 yards total), for a 73/27 pass/run split. In 2024, the Bills passed for 3,875 yards, and ran for 2,230 yards (6,105 yards total), for a 51/49 pass/run split. So, the 2024 team averaged 37 fewer yards per game, but had a much more balanced attack (meaning the WRs weren't as important as they were in 2020). In 2020, the WRs accounted for 84% of the team's passing yards (RBs and TEs accounted for 16% of passing yards). And the WRs overall accounted for 61.4% of our total offensive yards. In 2024, the WRs accounted for 61% of the team's passing yards (RBs and TEs accounted for 39% of passing yards). The WRs overall accounted for 39% of our total offense. I'm sure some of that disparity was talent-level, injuries, rookies, etc. But a big part of it is having the more balanced attack (everyone eats). We are a very different team than we were in 2020. Who knows, it may come back to bite us (not having a true stud WR), but I understand why the Bills may not feel the need to overspend on WRs? They just aren't as valuable at 39% of total offense vs. when they were 61% of the total offense. You may not like the different philosophy, but it makes sense to me that due to it (and Josh Allen), that the Bills think they can be just as good not putting too many assets into the position (at least as much as they used to). As to how all of that has affected scoring points (I've included all years 2020-2024, but highlighted 2020 and 2024 for comparison): Total Reg. Season Points Pts/Game (Reg Season) Pts/Game (Reg season and playoffs) 2020 501 (16 games) 31.3 29.9 (+3 PO games) 2021 483 (17 games) 28.4 29.8 (+2 PO games) 2022 455 (16 games) 28.4 27.7 (+2 PO games) 2023 451 (17 games) 26.5 26.6 (+2 PO games) 2024 525 (17 games) 30.9 30.6 (+3 PO games) So, 2024 was our best year at points per game in the regular season since 2020 (only 0.4 points per game less). And if you include the playoffs, then yes, the 2024 Bills did still outscore the 2020 Bills in points per game (scoring 0.7 points more per game overall). Different philosophy, very similar results. 2020: 15-4 record (13-3 reg. season), 3 playoff games ending in the AFC Championship Game vs K.C. 6,343 total yards, 501 total points, 29.9 points/game. 2024: 15-5 record (13-4 reg. season), 3 playoff games ending in the AFC Championship Game vs K.C. 6,105 total yards, 525 total points, 30.6 points/game. Now, how the Bills stack up talent-wise position-by-position with other contenders is a whole other conversation for which I would probably need to do a lot more research on (for the other teams) to get a better idea than just how many pro-bowlers or all-pros each team has. My gut tells me you may be correct with at least a few to even maybe a handful of the teams (that they would win out in an overall talent comparison), but I doubt the disparity would be as large as you think. Some teams may have more elite players, but the drop-off at other positions may be higher than a team that may not have as many studs, but may have fewer weaknesses or weak links. And just as the homers may over-value our players, the pessimists also seem to under-value our players in comparison to other team's players. Edited 17 hours ago by folz 1 Quote
GunnerBill Posted 16 hours ago Posted 16 hours ago (edited) 13 hours ago, FireChans said: Hopefully, we never find out, but personally I think in a “contender off” with the Chiefs, Eagles, Niners, Lions, Rams, Ravens, we comfortably have the weakest roster outside of QB. And it certain comps, it’s not really even close. Definitely weaker than the Eagles, Lions and Ravens. They are probably the three best rosters in football right now. In my opinion weaker than the Chiefs too although I think that one is closer. Disagree on the two NFC West teams. I think they were weaker than the Niners the last few years but the Niners can kicking has run out of road. I think their roster in 2025 is weak. They still have more stars than us but they are ageing and with health questions and they have some gaping holes too. The Oline other than old man Trent is a sieve, the Dline is a huge question mark and they might have the worst starting secondary in the league on paper. As for the Rams... I'd take their pass rushers - Turner and Verse - over ours and their two starting receivers (although Davante does turn 33 during the season the wall is at best "approaching" for him). After that the only starter of theirs I'd take for the Bills is Kam Curl at safety, who I actually wanted the Bills to sign when he was a FA last spring. Edited 15 hours ago by GunnerBill Quote
whorlnut Posted 14 hours ago Posted 14 hours ago How about we don’t even consider the possibility of this happening? Allen is the sole reason this team is a SB contender and I don’t want to even think about a single game without him. Quote
FireChans Posted 13 hours ago Posted 13 hours ago (edited) 4 hours ago, folz said: Now, in 2020, Stefon Diggs had 1,535 yards and 8 TDs; Beasley had 967 yards and 4 TDs; and Gabe Davis had 599 yards and 7 TDs. A true #1 WR, one of the best slot guys in the game, and a good/above average #2 outside guy. Kind of the traditional set-up in the more modern passing league. That year, the team passed for 4,620 yards, while the team gained 1,723 yards on the ground (6,343 yards total), for a 73/27 pass/run split. In 2024, the Bills passed for 3,875 yards, and ran for 2,230 yards (6,105 yards total), for a 51/49 pass/run split. So, the 2024 team averaged 37 fewer yards per game, but had a much more balanced attack (meaning the WRs weren't as important as they were in 2020). In 2020, the WRs accounted for 84% of the team's passing yards (RBs and TEs accounted for 16% of passing yards). And the WRs overall accounted for 61.4% of our total offensive yards. In 2024, the WRs accounted for 61% of the team's passing yards (RBs and TEs accounted for 39% of passing yards). The WRs overall accounted for 39% of our total offense. I'm sure some of that disparity was talent-level, injuries, rookies, etc. But a big part of it is having the more balanced attack (everyone eats). Its far less philosophy than you think. It's just throwing the ball less and running the ball more because you have bad WRs and good running backs. Which obviously works when you lean into your talent. The WR's in 2018 accounted for ~50% of the teams passing yards and 32% of the offense. Was that because of an "everyone eats" philosophy, or more likely an "everyone sucks" philosophy? 4 hours ago, folz said: We are a very different team than we were in 2020. Who knows, it may come back to bite us (not having a true stud WR), but I understand why the Bills may not feel the need to overspend on WRs? They just aren't as valuable at 39% of total offense vs. when they were 61% of the total offense. You may not like the different philosophy, but it makes sense to me that due to it (and Josh Allen), that the Bills think they can be just as good not putting too many assets into the position (at least as much as they used to). You are telling on yourself a little bit saying "this team thinks they don't need to invest in good WR's because they have Josh Allen." But remember the point of our discussion, the team's record without Josh. Why did we previously invest all that into WR? Diggs, Brown, Beasley, Davis? To help Josh be successful. It stands to reason we all agree that was a good plan right? Get a bunch of weapons around a QB who hasn't yet proven to be an MVP/AP candidate to help him succeed? It worked, right? 2020 is, at worst, the second best year of his career? So why would the quality of targets not help the league average QB we are playing with? Conversely, wouldn't having poor weapons be a much bigger detriment with a non-Josh QB? Of course it would. Removing Josh from the equation and inserting a Stroud, what team has a better record? The 2020 or the 2024? It's not even close imo. The 2020 roster is probably easily a top 4 seed still. And that's simply the entire point. Edited 13 hours ago by FireChans Quote
folz Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 7 hours ago, FireChans said: Its far less philosophy than you think. It's just throwing the ball less and running the ball more because you have bad WRs and good running backs. Which obviously works when you lean into your talent. The WR's in 2018 accounted for ~50% of the teams passing yards and 32% of the offense. Was that because of an "everyone eats" philosophy, or more likely an "everyone sucks" philosophy? You are telling on yourself a little bit saying "this team thinks they don't need to invest in good WR's because they have Josh Allen." But remember the point of our discussion, the team's record without Josh. Why did we previously invest all that into WR? Diggs, Brown, Beasley, Davis? To help Josh be successful. It stands to reason we all agree that was a good plan right? Get a bunch of weapons around a QB who hasn't yet proven to be an MVP/AP candidate to help him succeed? It worked, right? 2020 is, at worst, the second best year of his career? So why would the quality of targets not help the league average QB we are playing with? Conversely, wouldn't having poor weapons be a much bigger detriment with a non-Josh QB? Of course it would. Removing Josh from the equation and inserting a Stroud, what team has a better record? The 2020 or the 2024? It's not even close imo. The 2020 roster is probably easily a top 4 seed still. And that's simply the entire point. Are you really trying to say that the 2024 and 2025 WRs are as bad as the 2018 WRs were? 2018 WRs (in order of rec yds): Zay Jones, Robert Foster, Kelvin Benjamin, Isaiah McKenzie, Andre Holmes, Deonte Thompson, RayRay McCloud. 2024 WRs (in order of rec yds): Khalil Shakir, Keon Coleman, Mack Hollins, Amari Cooper, Curtis Samuel, Tyrell Shavers, KJ Hamler, MVS. 2025 WRs: Khalil Shakir, Keon Coleman, Josh Palmer, Curtis Samuel, Elijah Moore, Laviska Shenault, Tyrell Shavers, Jalen Virgil, KJ Hamler, Kaden Prather. And maybe I overstated my case regarding spending assets on WRs. I didn't mean we don't need any good receivers (as you made it sound), I meant more that the team now doesn't think that paying a top WR big money is a good use of their assets. That is philosophy in itself, in regards to team building. Do we spend a ton of money on a couple of players, say a stud WR and TE, or two top WRs, or whatever, and let the rest of the weapons suffer a bit because we don't have as much money to go around? Or do we try to have as many solid/very good (not elite) weapons for Josh to distribute the ball too? Two different ways to skin a cat. One team could have 2-3 elite players and then 1 or 2 very good players, but then have say 5 average players at other spots, while another team could have 10 very good players (no elites, but no weak links). And I agree (as I said) that some of last year was about problems in the WR room (injuries, Keon being a rookie, Amari adjusting to a new team mid-season, etc.), as to say the RBs getting so many targets, etc...but, it also actually worked. So, yes, at times last year it was a bit about playing into our strengths, away from our weaknesses. But, as far as the change in philosophy, do you not remember McDermott getting on both Daboll and Dorsey for throwing the ball too much/not being balanced enough? That balance is what McD had been looking for for a long time. That was the type of team that he and Beane wanted to build. Also remember in 2020/2021, defenses started playing teams like Buffalo and KC differently. Mover cover zero, etc. to try and stop these juggernaut offenses. So, both teams had to adapt as well. You can see it in our point totals that I posted. From 2020 to 2023, we went from 31.3 points/game to 28.4, to 28.4, to 26.5. What we had been doing wasn't working as well as it used to. Some of that was obviously moving on from Beasley and Diggs declining, but a lot of it had to do with how the NFL was changing. How many more running focused teams were there in 2024 as opposed to 2020/2021? Also, when we had that smaller, more finesse lineup, they didn't always fare as well in the cold weather or against stronger, tougher teams. The cold weather was no longer an advantage for us. The Bills made a concerted effort to get bigger and stronger, to use the running game and RBs more, and finally to last year with the everyone eats. It was definitely a gradual, purposeful change in philosophy by the team, not just that we didn't have a true #1 WR or out of desperation because our receivers sucked. And it looks like it worked, with 2024 being our best season (offensively and team-wise) since 2020. As to say inserting Stroud into either the 2020 or 2024 rosters, you could just as easily say that Stroud would fare better with the 2024 roster because he wouldn't be asked to do as much. He could lean on the running game. He would have a short passing game and outlets, so he didn't have to hold on to the ball too long. You wouldn't be asking him to go toe-to-toe in passing with a 2020 Mahomes/KC (like Josh had too in 2020). Much easier to ask Stroud to go for 3,731 passing yards and 28 passing TDs than to ask him to match 4,544 yards and 37 passing TDs (Josh's stats in 2020 and 2024 with almost the exact same overall team results). And our receivers might not be as good as in 2020, but I would venture to say that our offensive line, RBs, and TEs are all significantly better than in 2020. It seems you are just too focused on the WR room only, imo. Here are the difference in offensive players other than WRs (and guys still holding their position from 2020, like Dawkins and Knox): 2020: Singletary, Moss, A. Williams, Tyler Kroft, Lee Smith, Ike Boettger, Mitch Morse, Feliciano/Winters, Darryl Williams 2025: Cook, Davis, Johnson, Kincaid, Davidson/Hawes, Torrence, McGovern, Edwards, Spence Brown Quote
FireChans Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago (edited) 15 minutes ago, folz said: Are you really trying to say that the 2024 and 2025 WRs are as bad as the 2018 WRs were? No, I’m just saying the WRs sucked in 2018 and thus didn’t have a ton of yards and that the WRs sucked in 2024 and thus didn’t have a ton of yards. the 2024 group can be better and still suck. I’ll just ask again if you think that Stroud does better on the 2020 or 2024 team. You said “you can easily say,” but I want to hear what YOU say. Because your line about easy pass outlets is very funny when we had arguably best WR1 in the NFL and an All Pro slot WR in 2020. And a defense that had Hyde, Poyer, Tre, a healthy Milano etc etc etc. Imo, 2020 WR’s and defense much better than 2024. Like inarguably widely superior 2024 has a better RB room, arguably the least valuable position outside of STs and a better OL. TE’s is Dawson Knox both ways and a slot TE who wouldn’t be on the field with Beasley much anyway so he’s near irrelevant. So the answer is 2020 by a MILE for me. Edited 3 hours ago by FireChans Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.