folz Posted 5 hours ago Posted 5 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 5 hours ago by folz Quote
GunnerBill Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 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 3 hours ago by GunnerBill Quote
whorlnut Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour 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 54 minutes ago Posted 54 minutes 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 53 minutes 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.