Thurman#1

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.

Yeah, and with the huge amount of cap we had available last year to .... um .... oh, wait.

So many higher priorities. And with 1100 yards from scrimmage last year, I think he's going to get quite a bit more than you think. It's not like I'd mind but we have so many more urgent needs and so little money to spend, I think he's a bad use of resources.

The problem with cutting Joe B is smart and he gets what the Bills will do right a lot in terms of offseason moves. But ad hominem away if you must. Better to attack the arguments, though, I'd think, myself. The problem with cutting these guys is that many to most would have to be replaced. The exceptions would be Ford, who so far hasn't been good enough to worry about replacing and Feliciano who appears to have effectively been replaced by Bates. But if you cut Haack, he needs to be replaced. Klein is our best guy as a 3rd LB when teams put in an extra OL. He's very good at that, a thumper. I don't see anyone on the roster who could just step into that role. If you cut McKenzie you badly need another slot. Beasley has lost a lot of effectiveness against man-to-man. He used to be really good at any defense, and that just isn't the same at this point. McKenzie was good against man-to-man but hasn't really shown a lot against zone. Ideally we would draft/acquire a young slot guy who can be effective against both types of coverage, but if we cut McKenzie it becomes a necessity. Matakevich could go but he'd have to be replaced also. Could we maybe do it cheaper? I'd guess yes, but not all of his money will become available, IMO. Williams in particular would have to be replaced. The top five OLs really came together very late with him at RG. They played well. I'd guess that they absolutely are going to bring in a guard or two whether they keep him or not, but if he goes it would again seem a necessity. They don't have a guy who can seamlessly replace him unless we see a miracle turnaround from Ford or something wild like that. Star has always very effectively filled the space eater role, he's the best on the team, and it's a role they need filled in the McDermott defense. Phillips has really stepped up, but he's a bit more of a penetrator rather than a guy who eats blocks, and they want the LBs to be able to flow freely, which really hasn't happened the last couple of years especially in all the games Star has been out. There are major concerns with availability with Star, but if we cut him, I'd expect us to draft a mountain of a man to step into that role, as we need two one-techs and only really have one. I don't think they feel Zimmer fits that role as well as they'd like, though he does fit as a role player. I could see all of them going, and Beasley besides. But a pretty decent portion of the money freed up ($24M?) would go to replacements, and / or some draft picks as well. He really did. The problem is that for an effective tackle his salary is reasonable. Less for an effective guard. I would guess that they'd be much more willing to keep him if he negotiates downwards a bit.

15 in 2016 out of 373 attempts. 4.0%, which is really high. But he cut that way down the next year.

Yes, teams pick where they pick. But there are 31 other teams picking too. Freiermuth was both available and yet a good bargain with what teams knew at #55, and Knox was the same at #96. A round and a half is a round and a half, it's 41 players later, which means 41 players fewer to choose from at #96. Agreed that the Steelers are quite happy with the pick, but it's very arguable that Knox was a considerably better bargain. We'll see whether that continues to be so as time passes.

If you compare Knox this year in qualitative stats, they're really similar. To Kelce's 3rd year. The quantitative ones not so much, as they targeted Kelce significantly more. That might be partly due to KC's wideouts back then in 2015. The starters were Jeremy Maclin and Albert Wilson. Backups and role players included (in descending order of yards) included Chris Conley, De'Anthony Thomas and Jason Avant. I'd argue a QB might be more inclined to throw to guys like Diggs, Sanders, Beasley, McKenzie and Kumerow than that more underwhelming group. Y/R: Knox 12.0 and Kelce 12.2. Catch percentage: Knox 69.0% and Kelce 69.9% Y/Tgt: Knox 8.3 and Kelce 8.5 Y/R: Knox 12 and Kelce 12.2 Longest: Knox 53 yards and Kelce 42 yards 1st downs: Knox 53 and Kelce 40 TDs: Knox 9 and Kelce 5 And TDs is a very significant measuring stick.

Geez, yes, it's enough. The guy has improved his blocking by leaps and bounds, he's doing a terrific job there as well. He's become one of the two guys catching the ball that teams are specifically game-planning against. He's going to be here a long while, barring unforeseen circumstances like financial intransigence or serious injury.

Thanks for serving as an excellent example of the type of opinions held by Edmunds haters. Great job.

Kid yourself if you must, but that is what you're doing. It's wildly clear that his haters do indeed think they're way smarter than McDermott and everyone in the locker room and. They don't want to put it in those words, but they do. And what you're saying is "by my logic," um, well, it's not. In fact, it That's not my logic, nor really any kind of logic of any sort. It's just a desperate and unsuccessful attempt on your part to compare the way those guys have been treated by McDermott. In fact, it's your extremely pathetic attempt at a straw man argument. Tell me, was Cody Ford a captain? Three years in a row? A two-time Pro Bowler? I didn't really keep track ... did anyone name Haack the NFL STs rookie of the month the way they named Tremaine the NFL Defensive Rookie of the Month? Was Haack the NFL STs Player of the Week this year, or was Cody Ford the NFL Offensive Player of the Week this year the way that Edmunds was the NFL Defensive Player of the week this year? Did they exercise Haack's fifth-year option for $12.716M? Wait, that's not fair, since they couldn't. Did they contract with Haack to guarantee him $12.716M? Cody Ford? Just quick remind me, did any of those happen? Precisely. Of course they didn't. Again, you can kid yourself, but there's no comparison with how they've treated Tremaine to how they have treated Ford and Haack. The Bills love this guy. There's a weird group of folks out there who hate him. Which is pretty bent, but whatever. But they think that the guy sucks and that the Bills would be better without him, which is the opposite of what McDermott thinks, what Beane thinks, what everyone at TBD thinks, and what people around the league thinks. This sad group thinks they're smarter. Again, they really aren't. Doesn't stop them from doing a lot of talking, though.

Oh, please. That makes no sense. After you're eliminated from the playoffs, playing young guys to learn more about their capabilities for the next year isn't tanking. Wentz went 3-8-1 that year. Having a QB who sucks in your system and circumstances isn't tanking. Nor is yanking that guy at that point to give someone else a shot. Not even close. Don't you see that saying, "No one tells billionaires what to do," and that you "don't blame Flores or any other coach for refusing to play along," is contradicting yourself on the very same line? No one tells billionaires what to do? Flores appears to have done just that. And now there's a chance Ross will be separated from his cash cow. Wade Phillips did just that to Ralph, in a local example, accepting that it might get him fired. There are plenty more examples. If you tell a billionaire what to do, you might have unpleasant consequences, but plenty of times that's still in your best interests even if you completely leave morality and integrity out of it. It's also classed as business. And will become a much less successful one if people stop believing in the essential purity of the product. Not that it's perfectly pure, but that basically the outcomes are not manipulated. Lose that the people will go elsewhere for what they classify as entertainment.

Oh, if your argument is that the NFL shouldn't be in bed with gambling, I'd say that's fair enough. But your argument that when it looks bad people start to lose faith, I would question. The strong human urge to find a conspiracy where there ain't one so they can feel sophisticated and in the know means there are constant waves of people losing faith even when things don't look bad. As for coaches doing something stupid ... does it cause people to doubt? Sure. Again, people love to believe in conspiracies. Has there ever been a game in the history of the NFL, or organized sports really, where a coach didn't do something sub-par? No. They're humans. Humans aren't perfect. They operate with logical flaws (see Kahnemann and Tversky if you have the slightest doubt on this. They got a Nobel showing how humans consistently work with bad assumptions and biases). And that's not even looking at panic, at the effect of hormones and so on) and expecting anyone to consistently maximize their chances under pressure is simply unreasonable. People make mistakes. Every day. You can't eliminate them. You have to try to minimize them, but even the most successful and the smartest will make mistakes. And one of those biases is that conspiracies are behind everything. Look how many 9/11 truthers and Sandy Hook truthers and folks that find the Illuminati behind everything there are. Look at Joe Rogan. He's a smart guy but he simply loves the idea of conspiracies and will twist himself into logical pretzels to allow himself to believe in them and to believe that he knows better than mainstream science. Look at the Atlantis nuts and the archeology crazies he invites on. People will believe nutsy stuff whether it makes sense or not. People will believe anything. They'll believe that a human being making a mistake proves a conspiracy when actually a human being making a mistake proves he's a human being.

Yes, morality, but that's far from the only thing. Understanding of your best interest would stop it. Good business sense would stop it. Having a clue would stop it. For the league, anyway. Motive absolutely would stand in the way, unless you've got a person who's in some way completely cracked. And again, that's not the league. They're making oceans of cash from the system, risking those oceans of cash will absolutely be balanced against the short-term benefits. They're motivated, alright. To make sure things continue as they are. Yes, individuals who aren't receiving money from the golden goose might be motivated. But not the league.

It hasn't. The idea is nuts, seriously nuts. It's not a mistake that if Ross said this (I agree that it sounds plausible to me) that his coach turned him down. It's directly against the career interests of the coaches and players. Nobody can fire Ross, unless this becomes so believable the other owners get together and force him out). Whereas for players and coaches, being fired is by far the likeliest outcome, and you're judged by your film and your results. Could a gambler pay off a ref? Sure, it could happen in any sport. But the NFL do it? No. It just doesn't make any sense. Refs are also judged by their tape. And these things tend to come out, and jobs are lost with even the suspicion. It's directly against the NFL's interests to take the slightest risk to the golden multi-billion dollar apparently immortal goose for a shot at a smaller payday with a decent chance of killing that goose.

The most hilarious attack on Edmunds from his haters is ... well, all of it, really. But if I had to pick one thing, it would be how the haters all think they're way smarter and know more than McDermott and everyone who sees the game plans, is in the locker room, sees the practices. They all love the guy, but the haters think they're way smarter. Hint: they're not.

Is yours confirmed? I'd like to see the link on this. I doubt you will be able to produce anything, but I'm willing to learn if you can. And no, I don't think Beane would necessarily say that Allen was the #1 player on our board. Sometimes he says that kind of thing, and other times he doesn't. What you've got there, so far, is a pure guess.

W/ our cap situation, it'll have to be someone cheap. Most if not all of these guys will be out of our price range. We may get one on a one-year deal, but we need to develop a long term Frank Reich guy.