Thurman#1

They were indeed terrific. Agreed that terrific defenses create pressure. The Bills were among the league leaders in pressure and 10th in sacks. Agreed Causes turnovers in the backfield? Yeah, some do and some don't. I'd love to see your rankings of all 32 teams and how many sacks they created in the backfield to back up your claim on this. "What was the last game where you went 'wow the defense won that for us?'" you ask? That's a ridiculous question. Just because we have a really good offense doesn't mean the defense isn't also doing a terrific job. But just to humor you, the answer would be the first Chiefs game, where they did a sensational job in holding the Chiefs offense to 20 and then went beyond and scored 7 points on a pick six as well. The offense was good that game but the defense being terrific was why we beat the Chiefs. The actual question this year should be this: How many games were there where the defense played really well, well enough to win, but the offense couldn't do their part and we lost? That's the question and the answer would be three games: The Steelers game (The D allowed 16 points and 252 yards and the Steelers won on recovering a blocked punt in the end zone while our offense only scored 16), The Jags where our D held them to 9 points and our offense only came up with 6 points, the first Pats game. And the first Chiefs game, where they did a sensational job in holding the Chiefs offense to 20 and then went beyond and scored 7 points on a pick six as well. And yes it was a soft schedule. But again, DVOA calculates for easy schedules. They still had the Bills D as excellent. As anyone should. You don't just ignore soft games for the defense, any more than you say the offense wasn't any good because they too had a ton of easy games this year. When a defense plays an easy offense, if they're good they should not just play decently but dominate. They should hold those offenses down way below how other defenses held them down the same year. The Bills defense did that.

No, that's not the reason he's making $12.7M per year. The reason he's making $12.7M this year is because knowing the price Beane picked up the option. Beane certainly did NOT have to do that. But he did. And saying "a 2nd contract in the $6 - 8M per year range based on production is flat-out ridiculous. Not to mention wrong. Second contracts are based on production. The Bills signed him for $12.7M based on his production. Barring injury or major regression or improvement, his second contract, here or elsewhere, is likely to be somewhere between $13M and $19M, somewhere in there. Second contracts have nothing to do with draft spot. "$6 - $8M based on production"? Nonsense.

I mean, you may be right. But how would you feel about thinking that they want to see more if they extend him this off-season? That would prove you wrong, wouldn't it? And it could happen. Or not. But it's possible. And it's not unclear whether he considers Tremaine a core player. He absolutely does. Again, he said so flat-out about three days ago: Reporter: “Do you consider Tremaine a core building block moving forward?” Brandon Beane two days ago at the combine: “Yeah, we definitely do. " And while he gave Josh, Tre, Dawkins and Taron extensions after three years, he did not with Milano, and he kind of did with Tremaine. He signed him for his 5th year option at around $12M - guaranteed - for the year. That's an extension, though only for one year.

Well, yeah, having great games factors in. Actually all 17 games factor in. Including the bad ones, which they also had a few of. They were a terrific defense. But there's no such thing as a perfect unit, O or D. You'll have a bad game or two or three. But yeah, anything that would help us match up better - O or D - against the teams we're likely to meet in the playoffs should be looked at.

Simply, no. Going all in will work a certain percentage of the time. But if you are in the middle of a long window, with an elite young QB, it's nuts. Work on the offense. And the defense. And the STs. And depth. Kicking cans down the road reduces your window. No, thanks. One of those moves, maybe. Two possibly, if they can be done reasonably cheaply. Three, no thanks. And working on the OL will be just as crucial to offensive success, more so actually, than overloading the team with skill position guys. I'd love to see them draft a WR in the first. Pretty sure they'll do it if he's BPA. But a CB, IOL or DT would also be great. Yeah, but the offense wasn't the problem in that game.

Um, no. They showed it on the broadcast. He stayed on the field and watched the halftime show.

Gronk? Min? Yeah, good luck with that. He might do something doable, but I can't imagine him going anywhere for minimum. Too proud.

No, they talked about the whole defense. Spent about 5 - 10 min. on Edmunds, out of about 50 minutes. Bruce talked quite a bit about his thought that the Bills D is built to eliminate big plays, to eliminate defensive risk. He felt that kind of D was not likely to be able to stop high-scoring elite offenses. (My thought was that no defense stops them. Occasionally yes, but consistently no. But never mind.) He argued that the Bills needed a top-flight CB across from Tre to have a chance to do that. Also talked about how addressing DE was something he thought was necessary this year, as it was hedging against the risk of two of our young DBs not significantly developing in this offseason. And that he didn't want them spending a high pick on a DT that doesn't offer benefits in the pass game. Wants help at DT, but not in the first round. He did say he wanted the Bills to get a big DT in who can two-gap effectively and that that would help answer some questions about Edmunds. Puts DT as the team's #1 need. Wants them to acknowledge that they need to have an effective two-gapper DT so you wouldn't have to consistently ask your MLB to cover for light boxes by two-gapping. Didn't think they needed Jordan Davis to do that. Those were a few of his (greatly simplified here) arguments. I thought it was a thoughtful podcast. On Edmunds, the OP greatly cut Bruce's argument. He did indeed say that he thought Edmunds was fine. But he went well beyond that. He said that it seems many live in a world where you're great or you're trash on this issue, and that if he'd been picked later we'd all be comfortable with Edmunds. "When it comes to Tremaine Edmunds, anything short of All-Pro is disaster." Also points out that there's an aspect of his game that's difficult to quantify, that being the plays that the quarterback didn't do because Edmunds is there. This is an argument the anti-Edmunds folks aren't willing to live with. Which is likely why this aspect of this podcast's discussion has gone completely unmentioned, while the mention of Edmunds as "fine," because it fit their narrative, has gone right into the OP. "We often say that the average distance of target against the Buffalo Bills every year being incredibly low is a Micah Hyde stat. We say that. I would like to offer the fact that it's also partially a Tremaine Edmunds stat. The idea that a quarterback does not want to throw it across the middle down the middle of the field. The Buffalo Bills in the intermediate and deep part of the field have the lowest passer rating against of any team in football. People don't want to throw it there, and I think it has probably something to do with a six foot five freak of an athletic middle linebacker who just happens to be patrolling there. "You can not calculate for what a quarterback didn't do that he otherwise would have preferred to do. Linebacker play is hands down the most misunderstood and difficult to quantify part of football. It is incredibly difficult. It's almost like trying to calculate run blocking. The difference is it's a lot easier to see on film. But with a linebacker there's all these weird greys and nuances. You don't quite understand how run fits work. We don't understand where landmarks are in coverage. And because it's so grey we rely on splash plays. And when Tremaine Edmunds doesn't make as many as Darius Leonard, we think he's trash." - Bruce Nolan Funny how none of that was mentioned by these folks, and yet the "Fine" bit was.

The 1/11th thing is your opinion. Not the Bills. If he was only 1/11th, they wouldn't have made him captain. They wouldn't be paying him what they are paying him this year, which is considerably more than his 1/11th of what the defense costs. Beane and McDermott have made it clear that MLB is a key position in this scheme. They've been very willing to pay two LBs big money, right back to Carolina. It's not a 1/11th position in their defense. That's why they've used a 9th and a 16th pick on it in McDermott's two stops. You simply don't do that on a position which in your defense is only supposed to supply only 1/11th of defensive value. Your argument that it's not an impact position in this defense simply doesn't make sense. You say Kuechly is a unicorn. Well, yeah, but they spent a 1st round pick, a #9 to bring in that unicorn. Then they spent a #16 again on the same position again in Buffalo. You do ... not ... do ... that for an off-ball linebacker if the position is not an impact position in your defense. You just don't. They had a 1/11th guy at MLB in McDermott's 1st year here, in Preston Brown. A classic 1/11th guy. And they immediately spent a 16th on Tremaine. Um, captain? Three years running? You asked, and that is the answer. He is a leader, whether he's one you react to or not.

One of several moments of truth. There were a bunch on here predicting the Bills would never pick up his 5th year option. That was also a moment of truth. They did pick it up. You're right of course that the extension will be the next moment of truth. Imo 80 - 90% chance he's a Bill in 2023. But we'll see. To remind you all, though: Reporter: “Do you consider Tremaine a core building block moving forward?” Brandon Beane two days ago at the combine: “Yeah, we definitely do. " You may not. But they do.

That or they feel there's no particular rush, that they have plenty of time to lock him down. They hadn't given Milano an extension yet either at this point in his career. And Milano wasn't even under contract at the equivalent time. Yet they gave Milano a big contract. Not as big as they'll have to give Edmunds to keep him, but big. They could easily give him an extension this off-season. Or not. But it's clearly a reasonable possibility.

That isn't the truth. It isn't even the apparent opinion of the Bills. This regime has shown zero indication that they'd pay a non-QB $13M+ for one year for average player. Zero. It's just your opinion. Which you've got a perfect right to, don't get me wrong, but it's not "the truth." And while Edmunds has played so much that we really can't say what the team is like without him, we did see him play through a pretty serious shoulder injury through most of the first half of the 2020 season. And the Bills defense was much worse during that period and got obviously visibly better as he got healthy again. I personally agree that the team is better when Star plays, but it seems pretty clear to me that the same is very true of Edmunds based on the 2020 season. My guess is they keep Star but if they draft a guy earlyish or bring in an FA replacement, they could easily let him go. I agree with your take there, for what my opinion is worth.

IMO that's not Beane's M.O. I personally find it more tolerable that way, but still not something I would be willing to do. And again, it's Beane who does the picking. He's been willing in the past to trade 6ths and 7ths, but I don't believe he's ever emptied a round back that late. He appears to be very willing to trade a 6th or a 7th if he's got another left over in the same round. But for him to trade our 5th up for a 4th, he'd be emptying the 5th, and would be giving up 22.2 points in the traditional draft chart. The only possible way to get near that would be to trade both sixths. So he'd be emptying both the 5th and 6th rounds. He's never done anything like that in trades for picks. IMO very unlikely. A lot of people advocating tradeups do it essentially because they don't much value late picks. Beane does. He's shown he does. Well, we can agree to disagree. I don't think a punter is worth a 4th round pick, especially on this team that doesn't punt as much as most teams do. It isn't Araiza or bust. There are plenty of other replacements for Haack around, including one or two who might be worth drafting late.

We hear this every single year. Without exception. And each year Beane is willing to trade up but only does so if he's giving away only a late-round pick, the only exception being the year they'd put together a ton of extra draft capital to go up and get the QB they wanted in the first and then weren't able to go up as far as they thought they could so they ended up having duplicate picks in early rounds. Expect the same deal this year, being willing to go up a few spots with late-round picks. There's always a small chance they'll use more, but Beane has shown us what he likes to do.

We've only had two 4th round picks in the last four years. They are Gabriel Davis and Taron Johnson, two guys who will be important roster members for years. No way do I use a 4th. No reason whatsoever to think that a 4th rounder would be "a potential PS player waiting to make a start 3/4 of the way into the season." Taron Johnson saw 405 snaps his rookie year. He had 45 snaps and a pass defensed in week 3, 70 snaps a forced fumble and a QB hit in week 4, an INT in week 5 ... Davis by "3/4 of the way into the season his rookie year" had 5 TDs, more than 400 yards and almost 30 catches.

Yeah, a 5th is about where I would start thinking about it. If we miss him because he goes between our 4th and 5th round picks, I shrug my shoulders and get a punter somewhere else. Yeah, Haack was bad. Doesn't make it reasonable to pretend it's Araiza vs. Haack. Haack won't be here next year and there are a hell of a lot of other options than Araiza to replace him.

I do, myself. I think limiting his snaps as an older dude is something he'd love. Not to mention that if they did bring him in they'd absolutely put a bunch of 12 formation plays in. Throwing a dangerous two-TE package in on top of everything else would force defenses to spend yet more prep time on that. Little sleep that week for opposing DCs. To me it would depend on compensation. They may well just be kicking tires, but I'm sure a creative OC would rub his hands together in glee with both Knox and Gronk on the field sometimes.

I completely lost track of him after the draft. Cards articles read just now say he's had problems getting off the line against press. Makes too many moves, takes too much time. Also say he's a body catcher, which in a guy his size even further reduces his catch radius. Also say it may be that their lack of an OL forces Murray to start dodging rather than looking too early in the play and this may be having efffects on him never finding Isabella in scramble drills. They also wonder whether playing him exclusively in the slot when he only played outside in college may be a mistake. They also want to point out that Edelman sucked for his first four pro years while he learned behind Welker and such. They were aware that that was a stretch, and it really really is. Edelman played QB at college. Most guys who suck in their first three or four years in the pros don't turn it around. It's not impossible. There really are a few who manage it, but they're few. I liked him that draft. Wouldn't give much now, though. I'd love to give him a try, but I'd set a low ceiling on possible trade compensation. In the article in the OP they suggested that even a swap in one round might be enough. But with the Cards at #23 and the Bills at #25, that obviously wouldn't work.

Or, you're wrong, and Beane's right. I know that possibility might not have occurred to you. But it really has to most of the rest of the world. And we're a pretty damn good football team for one that according to you keeps missing on crucial draft picks. We have one of the absolute best rosters ine league, and about 13 of our starters (depending who you want to call the starters on our OL and DL) were drafted by this regime. And Diggs wasn't a bad use of a draft pick either and on top of those 13. So, nonsense. They haven't been perfect, but they've been quite good.

Not true at all. Every player in the NFL is effective or less so based on the guys and the system around him. As they point out on the podcast above, Lavonte David has always been very good, but how many people were saying Lavonte David was an absolute stud until they got Vita Vea, Pierre-Paul, Suh, and McLendon in front of and around him? Same with Ray Lewis. Started out and quickly looked like a hall of famer. Then Siragusa left and it was widespread that Lewis had regressed and simply wasn't the same guy anymore, that he was still good but that he'd never be great again. Who'd ever have guessed that a couple of years later they draft Haloti Ngata and instantaneously Lewis was awesome again? Well, anyone paying much attention figured that there was a good chance of it. And it happened. I mean, I guess you can argue Ray Lewis wasn't very good to begin with if you want to. Not many will listen, though. Lewis might be the best example but there are a million more.

If you want to argue that he's not as good as many think, or that he's under-performing, I won't spend a lot of time arguing, though I won't disagree. But we know that the last time they played Baltimore that they felt that they couldn't succeed with Edmunds doing what he does, that their main objective was to try to nullify Edmunds. Damond Talbot made that very clear on his interview with the Air Raid Hour here: It's at about the 29 minute mark. "The Ravens game plan against the Bills is try to get Tremaine Edmunds out of the play. Try to get him, by running motions try to move him out of position. Their entire game plan was to get rid of Tremaine Edmunds." So, when you say that he's not a guy opposing teams have to account for, he very much is.

I wouldn't. He's a great player. But he will cost $7M+ on the cap and more going onwards. I wouldn't spend that much on an RB, and McDermott isn't likely to either. Excellent player, when healthy, though. And it's not that we shouldn't spend that $7M. It's that we should spend it better, filling holes rather than improving strengths. People should note that the Giants drafted him and didn't win many games and they're now strongly thinking of getting rid of him at the end of his rookie contract if they can, while run by a new GM using Bills-like methods of team-building. There's a reason that's happening.

Some other guys have their salary cap hits go up some years. Josh Allen cost us $10.2M last year. He'll cost us $16.3M this year and $39.3M the year after. There's a ton of that kind of thing. Diggs' cap hit goes up from $6.3 to $17.9M this year. Which is why they may well re-do his contract giving him some kind of extension. As recommended above, you should really learn to use either the spotrac website or the overthgcap website. You can just google Buffalo Bills Spotrac. And you're golden. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/cap/ You can see each player's contract values through it's whole existence, the team's cap for several years back and forward, and you can even play GM using the "Manage Roster" function, cutting guys and seeing how the cap space changes. There's a learning curve. You have to figure out how signing bonuses are different from roster and option bonuses (each figure is given separately), you have to lear dead cap, etc. Took me a short time to learn most of it. But then realized I'd been wrong about one thing and it took me years to realize I was wrong, with much ridicule and help from folks on here. And I deserved the ridicule. That took like two years. But if you're going to be a serious fan, these days you've got to work on slowly picking it up. I think so anyway. Also worth understanding that when people on this thread talk about saving $20 or $30M, that will partially just be used to pay for re-signing guys whose contracts ran out at the end of the year but will be re-signed, such as Horrible Harry, McKenzie, a backup QB to replace Trubisky, Levi Wallace, etc. Or guys to replace them if they go, but in case they go, there's no way to guess how much the new guys would cost. Cover1 estimates they'll have around $10M left after all adjustments and bringing back all their guys, with the ability to generate around $20M more by pushing money down into later years. But Beane does some of that but doesn't like to do it excessively. Again, take a look at spotrac and overthecap.

Yeah, they could get by with the two of them getting what they want. Cut five or ten of their other highest-cap number guys. Then here are some suggestions: Cody Ford at guard. TJ Yeldon at RB. Vlad Ducasse, Jordan Mills. They can put a roster together. They oughta be great cuz they have Aaron Rodgers. That's maybe a fair market value for him, but it would be force a rebuild sooner and not later. They'd be crippling the beginning of the Jordan Love era. Not that Rodgers cares. He's all about Rodgers.

They did, that's fair. But they also benefitted from a bad game by Mahomes. If he'd played that badly against us, we'd have wiped the floor with them. Teams have dropped a lot of players out before against Mahomes and he's handled it better. He didn't this time.