Thurman#1

This is the concern. He's athletic, really athletic, but that doesn't always translate, particularly early in the process. In camp it was reported he had some trouble with speed. I'm rooting for him. I don't see him starting this year, but what do I know? Buscaglia raised the same question in his column today, talking about Cody Ford's pass protection problems so far this year. https://theathletic.com/2861979/2021/10/01/is-stefon-diggs-ready-to-erupt-5-thoughts-and-a-prediction-for-bills-texans/ EDIT: Ah, I see Yolo already linked to it, above. Yes. The year he struggled at guard he also struggled at tackle. It's why we were able to get him so cheaply.

It's as good as any system to deal with this problem can be. Any corrections would create their own problems. Those ten PI calls you counted, would probably be disagreed with about half the time by reasonable people.

That's absolute blather. Name all the 5th year extension pickups who got their extensions by the 3rd game of their 4th year. Hell, name ten. Exactly. As for the further nonsense in your second paragraph, again, obvious balderdash. You desperately attempt to frame it as Edmunds vs. Milano, but it's very obvious they want both. Which is precisely their M.O. Remind us, which of their two very highly paid LBs did they dump to sign the other one in Carolina? Did they dump Kuechly? Or Davis? By your jaw-droppingly bad logic here, signing Davis to a major contract was proof that they were going to let Kuechly go. He is playing like the Pro Bowler they hoped he'd be, and they probably think Milano is playing at a very high level too and thus they are thrilled to keep two highly-paid very effective LBs on the roster, just as they have done since Carolina.

They wouldn't be paying him as a top 3-5 LB. They'd be paying him as the 5th (not the 3rd or 4th, but the 5th) best-paid off-ball linebacker. Leonard, Warner, Wagner and Mosley all get $17M or more. If we pay him at the numbers you're suggesting (a reasonable guess), he'd be 5th. And generally when you have a guy who is, say, the 7th to 12th best at a position, he at first will be paid somewhere around the neighborhood of 5th best. That's the way it works. Then a year or two down the line he has fallen to to 10th or so, and a year or two still later he's still lower. It's anything but nuts, it's S.O.P. if you want the guy. And I agree with you that they seem to love him, probably because he's doing what they want him to do and is improving with time. Barring injury or regression, it does indeed seem very likely. There are generally somewhere around 9 - 11 guys on most teams who are the core guys and who the team feels they have to pay. The defensive captain who they love and who they have already guaranteed $12.7M to in 2022 seems likely to be one of those. And as Gunner points out, they could re-structure his 5th year option only if they give him a longer contract. And in 2023 they are around $90M below the cap and the cap seems likely to rise a lot at that point as well.

Why not force the opponent to prepare for both ... to not know? The way we have it now, they already have to prepare for Moss's brand of explosiveness. But they also have to prepare for Singletary's brand of explosiveness. As for your argument that Moss more consistently finds 8 - 15 yard opportunities, I'd argue that's recency bias and the unfair decision to try to gerrymander out the longer runs of both guys. Here are all of the gains for both of them of over eight yards. (I went play-by-play, and I could have missed one ... please feel free to check my work). SINGLETARY eight or more yard carries (35 rushes for 180 yards) Pitt 10:35 1st Q 8 yards Pitt 8:35 4th Q 15 yards Pitt 7:46 4th Q 25 yards Mia 12:33 1stQ 46 yards Mia 1:15 2nd Q 8 yards MOSS eight or more yard carries (21 rushes for 86 yards) Mia 5:16 1st Q 10 yards Wash 14:59 2nd Q 8 yards Wash 0:45 3rd Q 9 yards Wash 5:21 4th Q 8 yards They appear to be pretty similar with Moss getting slightly more eight-yarders per carry, but the difference probably being statistically insignificant. But Singletary appears to get more longer higher-impact plays.

It may matter to Moss and Singletary, but I greatly doubt it matters to the coaches. If it did they'd pick a guy and stick with him. And it doesn't send any kind of bad message, because the coaches feel, and doubtless communicate, that they are playing these guys for game-specific advantages in who they start. This isn't going to piss anybody off or send bad messages, the idea's ridiculous. It's not like the Bills are doing something wild here by going back and forth. It's S.O.P. these days on many teams.

Not really feeling this. Certainly not at anywhere near the 80/20 ratio you're suggesting. I'd expect somewhere between 40/60 and 60/40 depending on what situations arrive.

Typical. When there's no reasonable argument to be made, pull a quick switch, insert a straw man and pretend you're arguing with what he actually said. Remind us, with your arguments about turnover differential, did he ever say that turnovers are random? Yeah, the answer to that is "No." Wouldn't make sense to. Interceptions are anything but random. Nor is causing fumbles. What is pretty close to random is who recovers them. Having disposed of your first straw man, let's proceed to the second. Did he say that recovering fumbles was evenly distributed among all players based on number of snaps? Because if he had, you certainly polished off that argument very well. Thing is, that's not what he said. I wouldn't go quite so far as random myself, not on the player vs. player level. Some positions get more, some get less, those are facts. On the team level, yeah, the stats show that offense/defense recoveries go pretty close to 50:50. On the player vs. player level, though, yeah, it's wildly affected by luck, by how close you are, by direction you're going, by the bounce, and so on. That will - duh - not result in recoveries being spread out evenly across the roster based on number of snaps. That's not how randomness works.

We have watched. What you have there is not particularly correct. He often makes stops on runners. Do the runners generally try to run away from Tremaine? Yes, they do, it's their nature to run to holes if they can, but he fills holes and makes tackles plenty. Fair enough that he doesn't look quick or shifty. Tall guys with long legs rarely do. But the facts show that however he looks, he actually is extremely athletic. His scores show that, as NewEra displayed above. I would agree with you this far, when he has to reverse field, he looks a bit awkward, but he put himself in the right place often enough that you rarely see him reversing field.

He absolutely did blanket that route. What he did is the definition of blanketing. Blanketing is simply covering something very well. That's what Edmunds did. The fact that you're denying it says more about how desperate you are to find negatives about Edmunds than it does about his play. Heinicke wanted to go there. The reason he didn't is that the route had been very effectively covered. Blanketed. When they cut back at the end as the ball goes towards the INT you can see that Edmunds is still about a yard away from Humphries, even as his focus flows towards the side of the field the ball is headed towards. As for the rest of it, you are guessing. What we know is that he covered a zone, but that he very quickly got to just the right spot. This likely came about through a ton of film study, through listening to good coaching, to his instincts in coverage and to an excellent grasp of what Washington was doing on the play and an understanding of what his part was in thwarting them. Not to mention being 6'5" with an 83-inch wingspan, a silhouette that makes QBs sweat at the idea of throwing near. He's a really good coverage defender, and this was an example of him doing everything right, and of good team defense, and of Edmunds doing his job beautifully, which forced a longer time in the pocket, which allowed the Bills to make a big play.

This is the thing. The coaches love his coverage skills. Plenty of times when throws go elsewhere it's simply because it was supposed to go elsewhere. But sometimes it's because the first read was taken away. QBs don't like to throw around It's arguable how? Easily is how. Yeah, you can fill the spot on the field. But now with someone who plays as well. What was impressive there? He got to his spot more quickly than most, at the same time correctly identifying the route. Humphries on a linebacker is a matchup a QB is going to be thrilled to see, and it was his first read. And yet Edmunds just eliminated it. QBs don't like throwing near a guy that tall with arms that long. Heinicke appeared to keep his eyes there for a while, expecting Humphrey to get free. Edmunds didn't let that happen. And by the time he got to the read he threw to, he was surrounded in the pocket and he panicked a bit. That was a very nice play by Edmunds. Theoretically any LB should be able to cover Humphries on that play. In real life, few can and do. And while obviously nobody can guarantee that they will pay him $13 - $15 M per year starting in a year in which they have $90M available under the cap, the fact that they already guaranteed him him $12.7M in a year when they only have $20M available indicates that not only is it possible, but that it's quite likely, barring regression, injury and yadda yadda.

Makes total sense. You must be seeing things correctly. After all, if he took forever to react ans was slow to get to the ball and struggled to make one on one tackles, and didn't ever make plays in coverage, that would definitely incline McDermott and Beane, two guys who have put together a consistently very good defense, to play him regularly and to guarantee him $12.7M for next year. Yeah, clearly you're seeing this correctly.

It must indeed be discouraging, seeing the world so differently from everybody but a few other Bills fans. Turner is seeing the world the way the rest of us do, including OBD. You choose to see differently ... and then are surprised it's discouraging to see the world in such a sad and discouraging way. Yeah, I'm sure it is.

On the contrary, Sanders has been a deep threat his whole career. He's not the usual style of deep threat in terms of being a pure speed burner, a Henry Ruggs type. He's always been fast, but he earns his deep balls a bit differently, with great route running, so that they don't know he's going deep till he's already past them. Go to pro-football-reference and look at his longest pass each year. From 2013 onwards, it's 55 yards, 48, 75, 64, 38, 64, 75, 51 and 41 this year. He's always been a deep threat. It's just that he's also a short threat and a medium threat.

James Lofton was absolutely a burner. Here's a story about the Buffalo News in 1991, back when even going 4.4 was not that common. "So far, according to Lofton, his last big physical change came four years ago when, as a member of the Raiders, his 40-yard dash time dipped from 4.3 to 4.4 seconds." https://buffalonews.com/news/lofton-wont-put-timetable-on-his-nfl-career-wide-receiver-wonders-if-he-might-be/article_ed94d084-26da-5527-8ba1-cd1b656a245d.html Lofton's speed was his biggest weapon.

I hear you. But Canadian Football Hall of Fame says no.

Great coach. Great GM. Bad drafting the last 3 - 4 years, though. Was Brady the more important piece than Belichick? I've always thought so and said so. Not enough info yet for proof, but it's certainly looking that way. But there's no such thing as the GOAT, at QB or head coach. It's too hard to compare across eras and there are too many terrific candidates. But Belichick is certainly one of the best. Yeah, I think Brady was more important than Belichick to the overall success of that team, but having Belichick was also huge. Look at all the many coaches who had great QBs and never won one championship, never mind six.

I respectfully disagree. You're certainly right that there are huge physical differences there. But as far as performance, both were really pretty bad their first few games in the league. Bills fans remember some hopeful moments that year, and there were some. Most came in the second half of the year. His first few games he ran a lot but was pretty awful passing. The thing that made me more hopeful with Allen was that he had less experience than Wilson has. But it's so so very early. Do people remember how absolutely awful Peyton Manning was early? In his first four games, Manning had 3 TDs and 11 INTs. Only one of his passer ratings for those four games got up into the 60s (63.2). He was awful. And yes, the Colts were a tire fire, but same with the Bills offense that first year and the Jets offense this year. And yeah, Darnold looks like he's going to be for real.

Ah, thanks for pointing that out to me, I misread what he said. 'Preciate it. So in that case it's only the part about not being worth what Schobert gets that was so completely nuts about that post. I do get that you and he seriously think that. But again, you are among very very few, and the Bills don't agree, nor do the pundits, nor does anybody but the few folks on here who have picked this guy as a scapegoat from early on because they don't like his style of play. Um, yeah, I guess we can indeed say that that is what my post says to you. I find it hard to imagine anyone taking what I said to mean that nobody has ever been overpaid. But you have a history of what I consider to be pretty wacky takes and this appears to be another one. So, fair enough, this is indeed what it says to you.

Well, I'm no expert. But clearly the Bills GM thinks he's worth $12.716M totally guaranteed for next year, in a year when they do not have a lot of money lying around. I'm guessing somewhere between $13M and $15M. Maybe a hometown discount, maybe he goes elsewhere and gets quite a bit more. Spotrac has him at $14.0M after seeing 3 years of him. Seems a reasonable guess so far. And in 2023 they have a ton of money available so far. Again, except for the first half of the year last year when he was injured, this has been a consistently very good to excellent defense he has been calling the signals for and playing in the middle of. And no, that's not an overpay based on what he does on the field. If they didn't think he was worth the $12.7M, they wouldn't have paid him. The pitchfork crowd here doesn't think he's worth it. The Bills do. So does nearly everyone else around the league. It was widely accepted that the Bills would be nuts not to pick up the option, everywhere but among a few nutsy Bills fans. It's early in the season to judge anything, but he's playing well and the defense as a whole is dominant. He's a part of that. We'll have to see what happens this year, but if results are as positive as they've been so far, I'd expect to see the Bills do their best to bring him back

Yup, he is indeed a top 10 - 12 MLB in the NFL. He very easily clears that bar. He's also a top 6 or 7 ILB in the NFL for nearly every pundit out there who's weighed in. Which is why he has made the Pro Bowl there two years in a row. You're right that his fit in this system does indeed make him a better player. Same with just about any player, of course, but it's certainly true. Look at how pedestrian Ray Lewis was the years in the middle of his career when they didn't have a great nose tackle in front of him. Then they drafted Ngata and all of a sudden he was all-world again. But again, yes, his fit here is indeed part of why Buffalo chose him and why he's so valuable to them. And as for not getting half what Leonard signed for, that is utterly laughable. Of course he will, barring injury. Leonard is getting $19.7M per year. Care to bet Edmunds doesn't get $9.85M per year in his next contract? Loser sends a certified check/money order for $100 to the Patricia Allen Fund at Oishei Hospital, through one of the mods who volunteers to verify the transaction? Schobert makes more than that, at $10.75M/year and barring injury Edmunds will make far more than that as well.

Nonsense. He'll get paid what he deserves, perhaps a bit more if he goes elsewhere. After that you just don't know. And he doesn't have to improves drastically. He's already damn good. He does need to get better - McDermott would argue that's true of every Bill, and I agree - but as long as he improves significantly, which is far from unlikely in his fourth year and in a defense that's kicking ass around him.

Yet. That could extend into ever but it's too early to know.

So, you're saying he's missed a game? Wow, that's really shocking. I know no other players miss a game, so we should really be deeply concerned about this. Also critical and hateful. I personally am sharpening the tines of my pitchfork as I write.

Too early to mean much. Still, good for Milano.