Thurman#1

That's fine that you're for moving on. That wouldn't have been the right way, it would have been your way. We'll know what would have worked out better after we see how his time here ends. And yes, you can re-structure. But no, this is where the nonsense comes in, in no way does the team have the leverage right now. Neither side has much more leverage right now. But Star's agents know that the Bills don't want to cut him now with the cap consequences being wnat they are. Also complete nonsense that he's not making pretty good money if the Bills cut him. He was kicking butt last year till he caught Covid, playing excellent football. He could very easily get picked up for good money. There's simply no way to know, but it's very possible. And wow, you're really on fire today with the macho but ridiculous stuff, dude. Wow, I'm so impressed by your sheer masculine power and smarts. You're saying incentives are supposed to make a guy want to do things? Wow, so brilliant. I guess that's why nobody ever turns down incentives. Yeah, thing is you didn't say anything about incentives purpose being to incentivize. If you had, nobody would have disagreed. He's already got an incentive clause and yet we saw what happened last year. They can't change his contract no matter how tough some internet fan tries to sound. If he wants to come and earn the incentives, he will, and if he doesn't, he won't, and again he came in in terrific shape last year.

An awful lot of the time when people "read between the lines, the actual meaning is that they're letting their confirmation bias twist the data the way they wish it would be. Agreed they'd rather he got vaccinated. And agreed that they believe that Covid caused him problems when he came back, as it did with Dawkins. That didn't indicate they were unhappy with Dawkins' on-field performance when it was not Covid-affected, nor does it mean that here. Their discussion of him before Covid were absolutely ringing endorsements. Without question. You can say that they will "certainly move on from him this season." It is built on a foundation of utter and pure guesswork based on confirmation bias and has the logical certainty of a gambling addict saying the next roll of the roulette wheel will "definitely" come up 17 because he can feel it. It could go either way.

It's the Texans. They're looking for someone they can let go in a couple of years for their real candidate. Or to put it another way, "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown."

Sounds very macho and tough of you. But again, Hapless pointed out the problem with that and while you blustered a bit here, you didn't counter the problem, which is not your fault because there is no way to counter it. Hap's right. He's not paid to be at voluntary OTAs. He's paid if he is at voluntary OTAs. It's not required, it's incentivized. That's how workout bonuses work no matter how macho people talk. Cut him or keep him. Whichever. But there's no way to change his contract or make new conditions. He can come or not. It'll depend on what he wants, as it's voluntary. He's had a $250K work out bonus every year. If he doesn't come they won't pay, and if he comes they'll pay. It's in the contract, and that's the end of it. And while he didn't come to OTAs last year there's one thing we can be sure of, and that's that it didn't affect his fitness one bit. He was in terrific shape. I understand, but I think you're not fully spelling out the choice. To me, it's more like one impact guy like Jones and a bunch of mild holes in the roster vs. a bunch of average-ish players. Those mid-to-low level FAs are filling holes. Well, we'll see.

That's not even a particularly solid guess. Wouldn't mind if they cut him but it could very easily go either way.

Well above average player at what he does, space eating historically and even more now that he's lost weight. Decent contract based on how badly someone to fill that role is needed in McDermott's defense. Particularly how our run stats are noticeably significantly better with Star and worse without him. Year by year it stands out. Having said that, this year availability has become a serious concern, and after Covid he just wasn't what he had been. Before getting Covid he looked to be here for two more years. Now even this year is no sure thing. Is there some sort of reason for cutting Beasley twice? Do we save more that way? Don't see us getting anywhere near Jones. We could sure use him but it's just not reasonable with our cap strictures. We can make some space, but we won't be using nearly all of it for one guy. It'll almost surely be several.

I didn't argue it happens that way every time. Just that on average that is how teams should be judged, particularly when you're only judging based on the first year of the draft class. It's harder to get snaps as a rookie on a team with a roster that's already good. And it's easier to get players who can contribute early when you're drafting earlier in each round. I also didn't argue that some teams don't do well at drafting, even late. Just that it's harder to draft well late and that later picks might well need more time and development. And if you do do well late you deserve more credit for it than teams doing well drafting early. So for example, you're right that the Steelers drafted well all those years (not so consistently lately, though 2017 was pretty sensational, but they were the gold standard for a long time). But how much of that happened as rookies. The Steelers are famous for doing a terrific job of developing them and working them in, but for not getting a lot of use out of more than a handful of rookies.

It's not a baseless argument, so much as it is an argument that's inconvenient for you. It's in fact a completely sensible argument. For instance, Deion Sanders didn't get many INTS anymore late in his career. He wasn't making the splash plays anymore. By your logic that would mean he sucked. In fact, it meant nobody was throwing near him much. He was incredibly effective precisely because he stopped offensive plays from happening. Players absolutely should get a ton of credit for preventing impact plays that don't happen. It's hard to quantify, but it's still a thing. And on Addison, you're right. Clearly, you don't know you're right, but you are. A guy who forces a QB off the spot, even without making a sack, is making a good play, lowering the offense's chances. Addison doesn't do that nearly so often as we'd like, but yes, when he does he's absolutely making a big play. I'd agree with you as far as Tremaine isn't great at rushing the passer. But arguing that he does rush the passer a lot is utter nonsense. No he doesn't. It happens occasionally but far from often. And I already addressed the Tillman technique in the original post. Bills defenders are taught to go after the balls situationally. If you're the first guy, you generally need to get him down. If you're coming head-on the Tillman technique won't really work. It works well when you're coming from behind or from the side and he doesn't see you, and also when you're the second or third guy and he's already going down. Edmunds is generally very visible and is either the first guy or easy to see. Would I like to see him get more? Sure. The sad thing here is is that you can't realize that while a few of your arguments make some real sense, that your dislike for the guy means you're desperately subject to confirmation bias and will throw in any argument including plenty that make no sense. They love him. Beane said exactly those words in the final PC this year. It's not a sure thing, particularly if he insists on getting all the money he possibly can. If he wants $16 or $17M, he'll probably get it, and not in Buffalo. But folks don't want to admit this but the odds on Tremaine being here a long time are pretty damn good. I mean, you really feel that Beane's body language shows that he doesn't like Tremaine. Good lord! That's so far into confirmation bias it's pathetic.

I think this is all fair. IMO he could maybe get that much if he's lucky. I would guess not, but it wouldn't shock me. $6 - $7M would be my guess if he goes for the best offer. I think he's a solid #2, helped by scheme and personnel around him.

Opinion, Ian.

Which trend? The one where if you ignore all the good things and only look at the bad things, that things look pretty bad? That's not a trend. It's the result of partial information leaving only a partial picture. By using this methodology, finding three bad games in two years, we can conclusively prove that for the 2000 Ravens "things look pretty bad" on defense. I mean, within two years they allowed 35 points to a 9-7 Chiefs squad, 31 points to the 4-12 Bengals and 36 points to the 7-9 Jags. They must suck. I mean, sure, most consider them one of the greatest Ds in history, but still, having three bad games apparently proves you're no good. Same with the '85 Bears. Having allowed, in their championship year and the one before, 38 points to the Dolphins, 28 points to the 2-14 Bucs, 44 points to the Bears, 38 to the Cardinals and 29 to the Rams, they must bite also. No, I'm not saying that the Bills D this year ranks with those Ds. But I am pointing out that even the absolute best defenses have bad games. That's the way it works.

It's arguable either way. DVOA adjusts for strength of schedule, and they had the Bills #1. Top five, anyway.

Yeah, like check the Saints. They just lost one of the better coaches in football because he doesn't want to deal with the cap consequences of what they've done. Yes, it can be done. No, it's generally not a great idea. There are consequences. It's like saying, "Hey, you can buy any car you want. Just put get enough credit cards and do it." Yeah, you can do it. No, you generally shouldn't. And luckily, Beane has shown he's not that kind of guy. They'll get some money available, from cutting and re-structuring. They'll do it smart, so they don't kill our cap for the next few years.

Um, no. But they will have to work on improvement and prove it all over again, as teams do every year.

The top two rounds the past 2 drafts? First, he traded away the 1st round pick that year for Diggs. No first rounder makes it hard for a draft to show immediate big returns, and Diggs of course has been terrific. Basically you're talking about three players (outside of Diggs), two of whom are rookies, and all of whom are way too young to fully judge. 2020 2nd: Epenesa Not enough so far, but he's flashed and it's too early to know 2021 1st: Rousseau. For how much he's played, and the fact that he's a rookie, looks good so far. 2021 2nd: Basham. Hard to even comment, really. Showed flashes, but not enough, but the numbers game kept him off the field. No way to begin to judge, really. Only other top two round picks for Beane have been: Oliver: looks terrific. Ford: looks awful Allen: looks insanely good Edmunds: looks good Overall that's good.

Yup, thought so. Your comment on what Beane said about Edmunds was an excellent example of confirmation bias. This above is what you thought, so it's what you heard. Thing is, it's not what he said. Not even slightly close, actually. You claimed, "When asked in his season ending presser about Edmunds, Beane essentially said he 'does a great job with the play calls and getting everyone lined up.” That was his biggest praise. He didn’t sound at all like a GM who was ready to sign Edmunds to a long term extension." Yeah, that is one absolutely terrible summary or paraphrase or whatever you want to call it. That was very very far from "essentially" what Beane said. And it was also far from his biggest praise. He certainly did say some things about that, but I took down every word, took out the you knows and the agains and the uhs and ahs. I put every word outside of those. Please feel free to check. Having done that, I thought I'd put the stuff you referred to in black and the stuff that somehow slipped past you in red. It's not all great. He threw in some caveats. But in no way can it be said with any degree of reason that he "essentially said 'he does a great job with the play calls and getting everyone lined up.'" Beane said, "I thought Tremaine did a really good job again. His leadership, you know Tremaine is a quieter guy if you compare him to Josh, they're both the quarterbacks of their side of the ball. Tremaine is naturally quieter, more lead-by-example, but when he speaks, guys do listen. And I think year by year he's more comfortable being that guy, being that alpha even though maybe it's not innately natural to him. You know, Tremaine has done some really good things. I thought his physicality improved this year. You know, taking on, getting off blocks, I thought all that improved. There's still things that he wants to get better at. And we think going into next year, he's a young player still, but going into year 5 we think he'll be even better." Then he talked for a while about Oliver and continued about Edmunds, "I think as a young player, some things come faster to others. I think Tremaine has definitely improved his awareness, his instinct of what to see. Like anything, Sal, sometimes you face an offense that does a lot more, I was talking about Isaiah McKenzie or, some offenses you face ... Listen, I got two indicators, and then go. But you've got to remember too, he's also the quarterback of the defense, he's calling, he's checking, he's doing a lot pre-snap to get us lined up. It's a hard job, in the sense of, it's like Josh has gotta make sure of all these things, and he's got to go execute it. I appreciate where you're coming from. I think Tremaine does a lot with the whole operation that doesn't get noticed because maybe he didn't quite get through the B gap in time to make the play or he was late. He's a heck of an athlete. He's improved his pass concepts. Again, this was all new for him, coming to middle linebacker. And I think if you look at where he's at every year I think he has improved a little bit each year to where he's at. He'll be the first to tell you that there's plays that he wants back, that, 'Man, I should've seen that quicker or I should've reacted quicker, I should've been more physical, or I should've got my eyes around to find the receiver in whatever pass play it was,' but he helps us in a lot of ways that sometimes don't necessarily get picked up by Joe Fan or whoever." He talked about physical improvement, mental improvement, how his job is tougher than most think, how he's improving each year, leadership, and more. So that summary was totally unfair. Asked about a contract extension for him this off-season, Beane said, "We'll look at all that. The cap is what I ... the first thing I've got to do is make sure we can operate and what moves are going to have to be made, whether it's a pay cut, we did that with some guys, cap releases, so I'll kinda do all that first but, you know, love Tremaine and I'm sure at the right time we would consider anything, but I really don't usually do that at this time of year. We'll just kind of see how it goes, see what holes we fill and probably table that for now." You left out the "love Tremaine" thing somehow. Beane doesn't say that a lot. Did seem to say they wouldn't make a new contract this time of year. But in no way he say anything that could be taken as saying they're not very interested in signing him to a long-term contract. Just that it did indeed sound like this may not be the right time. This wasn't boiler-plate praise. It wasn't "he gives 110%," or "the linebacker group shows up and works hard every day." It was extensive, specific and way beyond what you suggested. Again, great example of confirmation bias.

True that without his great players he's not a hall of fame coach. But that's also true of every hall of fame coach. Marv was a very very good coach. Levy wasn't ignoring scheme. Don't know where you're getting that. The Bills did individual game prep and installation.

Yes, very few impact plays, as long as you are willing to ignore all the impact plays that don't happen to fit into your categories. Doing which would be ridiculous. That makes a bit more sense if you say "splash plays" instead. It's true he didn't make a ton of the spectacular plays. This is a team defense Impact plays should include plays where he stops a guy short of the first down. Plays where a QB comes off his first read to his second, sees Tremaine nearby, thinks about it but goes to his third and the rush can get there and cause a sack, an INT from pressure or an important incompletion. People don't want to treat those as impact plays, but they absolutely are. The Bills D is a team defense. When you look at the passing charts for opposing QBs on nextgenstats what you see is that over the middle there are very few passes thrown between the five and about the 18. And that's a pretty common area to target against most defenses. That's the Tremaine effect, or part of it. He doesn't get a lot of INTs because QBs don't like to throw near him. He doesn't get a lot of sacks because he doesn't rush a whole lot. I'd like to see him do more swiping at the ball, but Bills tacklers don't seem to be coached to do that except from behind and if you're not the first guy in the play. Tremaine generally wraps up, which is good but won't get you a lot of fumbles caused. Does he need to improve? Sure. Would I like to see him get more of those? Yeah, who wouldn't. But he still does a good job of doing what they want him to do. And while I have to go to sleep now, so I can't track down exactly what Beane said, I think, "essentially said he 'does a great job with the play calls and getting everyone lined up," is a distortion. Yeah, he said that. It wasn't all he said, and it wasn't essentially what he said. If I have time tomorrow, I'll look up the exact words. Maybe I'm wrong, I'll see tomorrow. But when they say that they're usually saying it in the context of pointing out that Tremaine does more than many people understand and that he's got a tough and extremely crucial job to do even before the snap and that that's always worth pointing out since so many don't want to talk about it as it's pretty Inside Football stuff and kind of boring to some.

No. Look around the league. Look in the locker room. He's a two-time Pro Bowler. Most folks aren't in that grey area. Most of what you are calling the grey area I believe still just don't get it. Where are the folks in the locker room who say he's in this grey area you mention? Are they the ones who've voted him captain three years in a row? The ones who picked up his $12M option? A lot of your grey group indeed thinks he's not worthy of what he'll be paid next year. Where are all those folks in he locker room. They aren't in Beane's office. The Bills love the guy. Great MLBs don't have great physical attributes? Seriously? That's what you're arguing? Yeah, I'd call that nonsense. Edmunds is indeed tall, rangy and fast, but he's also brainy, a leader, willing to play hurt, tough and excellent in the pass game. There are a few great MLBs who weren't physically trait-packed, Zach Thomas for example. But they are few and far between. Most great MLBs (and other positions besides) wouldn't have become great if they didn't have terrific physical traits. Butkus was strong as a horse and hard-hitting, and that was his main attribute, though he had others. This grey are you mention is indeed bigger than the ones who think he sucks. But it still isn't a big group and nearly all of them are Buffalo fans. If I could maybe attempt to find a middle ground with you, I'd argue that of the people you are calling the grey area, I'd agree with probably a lof of what the group higher in that grey area might think. Most folks lower down it's clear they disagree with McDermott and Beane, the Bills decision makers and the guys in the locker room In any case, do you see me writing the kind of post I wrote above to more measured posts about the guy, outside of posts that are specifically talking to me like this one? Or more often to the nutballs and fruitcakes with the desperate need to denigrate him whether or not it requires a thread be napped? There certainly is room for discussion on the guy. Anyone who says he's elite is as wrong as the folks screaming about how awful he is. He's got his faults, there's a lot of room for intelligent reasonable criticism. But most of what he gets isn't that. The loudest voices on him are the least worth listening to, I'd say.

You may still be waiting on Edmunds. But a large majority actually get it. There are indeed some folks who still have a problem with Edmunds. Not the folks at OBD. Certainly not most folks around the league. It's mostly a small group of Buffalo fans who seem to always be looking for a scapegoat. And Oliver plays a position that takes time, it just does. He was good the first year and has improved consistently and this year was excellent. He's a very good pick.

That's just nonsense. Their drafting has been pretty good. Which is a lot of the reason they made the Championship game last year and the Division game this year. It does work that way. Precisely that way. "There isn't necessarily a correlation between draft order and draft quality," you say? Well, yeah, exactly. Some teams overperform, some underperform and some seem to get quality about at the level you'd expect. Yeah, exactly. The teams that overperform their draft spot are doing a good job, even if they're the #30 team and they're not getting ranked after one year as high as teams that drafted in the top five. It would be wildly unreasonable to expect them to do so.. 27th certainly isn't great or anything, even for a team that drafted 30th. But it's not bad at all. The Bills didn't get a chance at relatively easy victories like Kyle Pitts or J'Marr Chase or Micah Parsons or Vera-Tucker. Drafting high sure doesn't guarantee success. But it makes it easier, in every round but particularly the earlier ones. And the earlier rounds are the ones most likely to have showed well after only a year.

This is what happens with teams who draft very late. First, you don't get a shot till in this case 29 other teams have picked. And second your roster is a ton stronger and it's hard for rookies to get many snaps. It's just what happens. In a few years we'll have a better idea.

Best answer? Dunno. That's the best answer. Dunno. It's a bit like asking what the weather will be like ten years from today. The range of possible outcomes is too wide and there's no good reason to pick any particular one other than you want it to be true. Fran Tarkenton says hello. So does Steve Young. John Elway. Russell Wilson. Aaron Rodgers. Steve McNair. Weren't one or two of those guys pretty good? Of course guys who run but can't pass don't last, but it's not because they run, it's because they can't pass. And Josh Allen can pass. Do some running QBs get worn down and hurt? Sure. Newton and Vick for two, though Vick if he hadn't done the dog fighting, who knows. So what will Allen be, Newton or Elway? No real way to know. Nothing wrong with guessing, I guess, but that's about all we'll be able to do.

I remember his longer runs more as beautifully surfing a wave and finding the exact right path more than running away from people. Agreed with those that cited quickness more than speed. Yeah, Thurman on these Bills would probably average 4.6 a carry and get around 10 - 12 carries a game. It'd be fantastic.

Agreed. And FA edges are expensive, or the good ones, anyway. I could see them bringing in a mid-level guy this year, but our best shot at improvement there this year is likely a 1st rounder (and even most of them take a while) or the guys we have developing.