Thurman#1

"some money". Many seem to have taken that as "lots of money." But that's not what he said. No, they're not. I mean there may be some guy in his mother's basement covered with Cheetoh dust saying that, but nobody with any degree of understanding is saying "no cap." They just aren't. They're saying we won't have a lot of cap. The reason they're saying that is because we won't have a lot of cap. EDIT: By the way people are responding, it seems that when you said "We have no cap," you actually were referring to the current figure of -$3.9M, at least as Spotrac has it? That's some wildly unclear writing, if so, but if that's what you meant, then it is correct that we are indeed below the cap currently by an amount that the NFL and the Bills have on file, and it's indeed very close to the amounts that Spotrac and OvertheCap have. Unless they act in a way that Brandon Beane has never acted and kick a lot of cans down the road. He could indeed do that. But it's not likely.

If you read the article it makes it clear. No reason to doubt what they say, there'd have been no upside to lying about it.

Love this guy. The instant he catches the ball he's headed upfield looking for YAC. In a very determined manner.

Did they take Lotulelei out against KC? Nope. 58% the first game and 43% when he was playing poorly after Covid. They play our space eater even against mostly pass teams. Not generally on passing downs, but they do play the space eaters. In 2018 when healthy, against New England with Brady he played 53% and 47%. The whole year he played less than 44% in only three games. With the Bills Lotulelei has never played less than 47%, excluding his opt-out. And if they draft Jordan Davis it will be to be the new, available and hopefully improved young Lotulelei. Our DL all platoons, pass rushers included. That's how they're used and yet they still draft DLs in the 1st.

Different needs at 3-tech and 1-tech. They haven't drafted a massive 1-tech because they had one who they spent a ton on in FA. And that guy is no longer able to consistently stay available. They could do this. Don't know if they will, of course, but they could.

Oliver 623 snaps and Phillips 474. Phillips outsnapped him by percentage, but not by snaps. But I totally agree with you. He fits the scheme. They could certainly take someone else, but I'd bet they've done due diligence and more on this guy.

If they draft him, it won't be for sacks. And they might draft him at 25. Not that I met his best friend or any nonsense like that. Just that he's among o group of real possibilities at that point.

Too early for anyone to know. No way to have seen all the offers.

We do have to assess which is more realistic. Neither of your suggested alternatives is realistic. When the Bills offense is hitting on all cylinders, they can't be held down. Same with the top three or four offenses in the league. When you bend the rules to favor the offense as much as the NFL has over the last twenty years, that's the way it is. When our offense was stopped, it was mostly their own fault. Same with KC. Same with two or three other teams. Equally, though, building an offense that can score every possession ... the idea is nuts. It's not a mistake that the most points scored per game this year was 30.4. Buffalo was only 0.6 PPG behind them. Here is the top scoring average across the NFL for the ten years before that. 2020: 31.5 2019: 31.9 2018: 34.8 2017: 29.0 2016: 34.1 2015: 31.1 2014: 30.4 2013: 36.4 2012: 33.9 2011: 34.7 We're not going to start suddenly scoring 40, much less 50 as the nutso headline suggests. We'd be doing incredibly well to average two points a game more.

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.