Ranking NFL WR, TE, RB groups for 2025: Bills 28/32?

[AlCowlingsTaxiService]

I don’t know if they deserve that low ranking, but I do know that if I were an impartial NFL fan, I wouldn’t rank the talent at the offensive skill positions of the Bills that highly either. 

[folz]

Barnwell's article seems like a pointless experiment. It is basically, which teams have the most stud/household name skill players (preferably WRs). It by no means determines how any of these offenses will be in 2025 (with or without their QB). And pretty much any fan could look across the teams and say who has more studs than others with a quick glance. No need to even bring analytics into it, it is a pretty obvious task. But that is fantasy football type of stuff, not team building. And even though he claims to have used metrics/analytics, etc., a lot of his decisions were obviously made on pure opinion (particularly in regards to injuries, rookies and second/third-year players, etc.).

 

And why weight receivers higher? Yes, it is a passing league (and they get paid more, not sure what that has to do with it), but many teams went back to a heavier/more balanced run game over the last couple of years. And if you look at total yards from scrimmage in 2024, in the top 32, there are 21 RBs, 10 WRs, and 1 TE. There are only two WRs in the top 18 (all the rest are RBs). Eight of the non-QB touchdown leaders in 2024 were RBs, with only 2 WRs. Both receivers and RBs are reliant on the QB and offensive line to get their jobs done. Plus, there are many teams with a better player at RB1 and TE1 than WR2 or WR3, etc. 

 

Weighting WRs higher automatically shoots teams with say two stud WRs up the rankings. But maybe because they are paying those two WRs a lot, their offensive line isn't as good, or their RBs and TEs are a step down, or they're lacking in depth. Or maybe it's because they aren't paying a franchise QB yet, or their defense suffers for it. Plus, he's comparing three players of one group (WRs) vs. only 1 player in the RB and TE groups. So, he's almost adding a double-weight to the receivers. Why not just make the article, who has the most stud receivers, or the best receiving group, instead of making it seem like he is comparing all skill groups evenly.

 

In 2024, 15 different skill players touched the ball for Buffalo. In 2023, 14 different skill players touched the ball. Our offense spreads the ball around to more than just 5 players. As does every offense to some extent. Most teams run tandems at RB, all teams have two-TE packages, guys get injured, many teams rotate guys based on the game or opponent, etc.

 

By not including depth, he is definitely skewing the picture. Yes, if you were to rank only TE1s, Kincaid (based on current production, not potential*) would probably be in the 12-15 range. But when you add Knox, Davidson, and a true blocking TE in Hawes, I think our TE group will definitely be top 10, maybe top 5ish. Same goes for the running back room when you add Davis and Johnson to Cook. [Plus a top 5 O-line.]  [*Barnwell's opinion also shows through on which "potential" guys he thinks will improve and which won't.]

 

So, the article basically comes down to who would have the best offense if you remove the OC, QB, all offensive linemen, all RB depth, all TE depth, and WRs 4-6 and then you add extra weight to the top 3 wide receivers. How at that point are you even comparing offenses or being able to assess how much a GM has helped their QB? For the Bills at least, with how we run our offense, that is like saying how would the Bills offense fare if you removed Brady, Josh, the offensive line, and 66.6% of their skill players. Or if you think, QB, 5 OL, 3 RB, 3 TE, 5 WR as your main guys, Barnwell is removing 70% of the offense and comparing the rest to try and determine who would be best if you removed only the quarterback.

 

Just not understanding the point of the article. [And from a Bills perspective, it just perpetuates the false narrative that Josh is doing it all on his own.] Either rank receiving corps as a whole (where the Bills would currently rank low), or all skill players as a whole, or the total offense without the QB (in both cases, the Bills would rank much higher). Or do a big three skill positions ranking (best WR, RB, TE trio). This in between is just some fantasy land and is misleading (according to his article's title and mission statement).

 

 

[P.S. I do expect our WR corps this year to be much better than most outsiders are currently projecting. But, I understand the reason for the current projections as well and would not expect us to be more than average at best in most WR only rankings.]

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

12 hours ago, folz said:

Barnwell's article seems like a pointless experiment. It is basically, which teams have the most stud/household name skill players (preferably WRs). It by no means determines how any of these offenses will be in 2025 (with or without their QB). And pretty much any fan could look across the teams and say who has more studs than others with a quick glance. No need to even bring analytics into it, it is a pretty obvious task. But that is fantasy football type of stuff, not team building. And even though he claims to have used metrics/analytics, etc., a lot of his decisions were obviously made on pure opinion (particularly in regards to injuries, rookies and second/third-year players, etc.).

 

And why weight receivers higher? Yes, it is a passing league (and they get paid more, not sure what that has to do with it), but many teams went back to a heavier/more balanced run game over the last couple of years. And if you look at total yards from scrimmage in 2024, in the top 32, there are 21 RBs, 10 WRs, and 1 TE. There are only two WRs in the top 18 (all the rest are RBs). Eight of the non-QB touchdown leaders in 2024 were RBs, with only 2 WRs. Both receivers and RBs are reliant on the QB and offensive line to get their jobs done. Plus, there are many teams with a better player at RB1 and TE1 than WR2 or WR3, etc. 

 

Weighting WRs higher automatically shoots teams with say two stud WRs up the rankings. But maybe because they are paying those two WRs a lot, their offensive line isn't as good, or their RBs and TEs are a step down, or they're lacking in depth. Or maybe it's because they aren't paying a franchise QB yet, or their defense suffers for it. Plus, he's comparing three players of one group (WRs) vs. only 1 player in the RB and TE groups. So, he's almost adding a double-weight to the receivers. Why not just make the article, who has the most stud receivers, or the best receiving group, instead of making it seem like he is comparing all skill groups evenly.

 

In 2024, 15 different skill players touched the ball for Buffalo. In 2023, 14 different skill players touched the ball. Our offense spreads the ball around to more than just 5 players. As does every offense to some extent. Most teams run tandems at RB, all teams have two-TE packages, guys get injured, many teams rotate guys based on the game or opponent, etc.

 

By not including depth, he is definitely skewing the picture. Yes, if you were to rank only TE1s, Kincaid (based on current production, not potential*) would probably be in the 12-15 range. But when you add Knox, Davidson, and a true blocking TE in Hawes, I think our TE group will definitely be top 10, maybe top 5ish. Same goes for the running back room when you add Davis and Johnson to Cook. [Plus a top 5 O-line.]  [*Barnwell's opinion also shows through on which "potential" guys he thinks will improve and which won't.]

 

So, the article basically comes down to who would have the best offense if you remove the OC, QB, all offensive linemen, all RB depth, all TE depth, and WRs 4-6 and then you add extra weight to the top 3 wide receivers. How at that point are you even comparing offenses or being able to assess how much a GM has helped their QB? For the Bills at least, with how we run our offense, that is like saying how would the Bills offense fare if you removed Brady, Josh, the offensive line, and 66.6% of their skill players. Or if you think, QB, 5 OL, 3 RB, 3 TE, 5 WR as your main guys, Barnwell is removing 70% of the offense and comparing the rest to try and determine who would be best if you removed only the quarterback.

 

Just not understanding the point of the article. [And from a Bills perspective, it just perpetuates the false narrative that Josh is doing it all on his own.] Either rank receiving corps as a whole (where the Bills would currently rank low), or all skill players as a whole, or the total offense without the QB (in both cases, the Bills would rank much higher). Or do a big three skill positions ranking (best WR, RB, TE trio). This in between is just some fantasy land and is misleading (according to his article's title and mission statement).

 

 

[P.S. I do expect our WR corps this year to be much better than most outsiders are currently projecting. But, I understand the reason for the current projections as well and would not expect us to be more than average at best in most WR only rankings.]

 

You wrote much more than me and come to same point, our RB corp is top 8, our TEs are above average, and our WRs I think are better than NE, CLE, CAR, LV, TEN, ranking them 28 overall is crazy.