Thurman#1

Agreed on both. Hopefully these moves won't cause major problems but I do expect a down-tick in both areas. Robert in particular was under-rated for his contributions last year. He really did an excellent job.

I get it completely that you don't know why it doesn't work, and can't ever understand until you listen to the video. It would require you to listen to the entire first twelve seconds of the video for you to figure out why it doesn't work. But doing that much research appears beyond you. Better to just defend an opinion about which you are completely uninformed. But it's clear at this point that popping off with opinions about which you have zero information and no inclination to learn is your pattern. You don't know me, but you think you understand me. You don't know the video but you think your opinion about it is worth something. Things are awesome for me right now, actually. First day of a four-day weekend, and I just finished reading my kid a part of a Ramona book as a bedtime story. But no, clearly you know more about me than I do, or so you think. Your idea that I'm uninformed is wrong, and provedly so. I've seen the video. You haven't. I'm in the process of living my life. You haven't an ounce of insight into the video or my life and are yet willing to think your opinion about either is worth something. It is kind of amusing, though sad, but I've been amused enough at this point. Your feets have failed you now, and when it comes to informing yourself to even the slightest degree, you ain't Willin'. You had the chance to take the high road but instead you went Lowell. But the Feat references don't work here. And you still have no earthly idea why your joke doesn't work and aren't willing to check your facts as to why. Anyone interested enough to read the past few posts has seen that very clearly. 'Nuff said.

He said "So I see Emmanuel Sanders catching 65, 70 balls (1000 yards and 70 balls would be 14.2 YPC) and a couple of them being 65+ yarders for touchdown." That's maybe warm, but it isn't boiling. If he gets two long balls like that, he could easily average 14.2. When you look at his last few QBs, they are the 2020 version of Brees and Taysom Hill, half a year of Garoppolo and four or five years of Denver's carousel of mediocrity with Flacco, Lock, Keenum, Siemian, Osweiler and Lynch. He did get Manning in his last couple of years, and though Manning wasn't exactly throwing downfield a lot at that point, he made Sanders look sensational and he ended up with Y/Rs of 13.9 and 14.9. Is it really so unreasonable to think Sanders might do better and get longer throws with Josh Allen throwing to him than the motley group he's dealt with since Manning retired? I don't think so.

Yes. Uninformed because you feel the need to talk about something you aren't willing to inform yourself about. And the fact that you seem proud of that proves my point. You are off the mark, that's not an opinion, it's a fact. Your little joke doesn't work, and you're too determinedly uninformed to ever know why. My day's fine, thanks, though I am watching something sad on a message board.

I don't know. Hot but not boiling. There is more than one way to take the top off a defense. We generally think of amazing speed, and Sanders doesn't really have that, but route running can do it sometimes as well. I mean, Sanders' longest catch last year was 51 yards. The year before that he was on two teams, and his longest with Enver was 53 and with SFO was 75. 75. The year before that, 64. Going back you then have 38, 64, 75, 48, and then 55 though in his first three years he was less of a long threat with Pittsburgh, putting up a 37, a 32 and a 35. I'd say he's a guy who sometimes takes the top off of defenses. He didn't say he thought Sanders would regularly be open deep or anything like that. He did say he thought maybe Sanders would have a few deeper catches. I don't think that's all that unlikely. IMO teams will be less worried about that than they would have been with John Brown, and for good reason, but Sanders manages it sometimes. I can imagine him getting a 1000 yard season here. I'd need more than straight-up odds to bet it, but I don't think it's such a bad bet for a guy who got 726 last year from Brees, whose arm was greatly limited in terms of distance. And for the record, I'd pick Sanders over Davis if asked to predict who'll have the most yards. I think it could go either way, but my guess is Sanders being a better route runner pays off with more targets. You uninformed but still mouthy, bro? Um, yup. Again you won't know why you're off the mark without watching, but you are. I'm mouthy too, but at least I try to only mouth off when I can have an informed opinion. If I don't have enough interest to inform myself, I don't comment.

Not wanting to give somebody a click is totally fair. Commenting on the thing you haven't watched, not so much. And it is exactly your LIttle Feat reference that doesn't work, and precisely because you didn't watch the video, though you'll maybe never know why.

Yes, a first alternate in 2019. Meaning best after Darius Leonard and Hightower, in his 2nd year. Top two last year, with an injury and with real problems at 1-tech, and still, losing to Darius Leonard and beating guys like Zach Cunningham and Schobert is not unimpressive. That is in no way anywhere close to what happened with Tyrod. I certainly agree that so far Edmunds hasn't yet earned a contract like that, though. Without question. But people consistently saying ridiculous things like "he's an average starter," and talking about "his bad play," are nuts and show he's one of the designated scapegoats among this fanbase.

That's certainly a very reasonable guess. A fact, though? No. So you didn't even listen to him introduce himself, hunh? Fair enough, but then why comment?

I agree with most of your post here, but there's no comparison between Tyrod making the Pro Bowl and Edmunds doing it. Tyrod made the Pro Bowl twice, as a sixth alternate and as a fourth alternate. That's not what happened with Edmunds. Again, there's just no comparison there.

The reason some on here call critiques of Edmunds hate is because so much of the criticism of Edmunds has been over the top and unreasonable, and you've been leading the charge on that. Not least with this insulting post, that as usual goes over the top and unreasonable on Edmunds. Anyone who says "Hate = truth" understands neither. As for the OP, sure Edmunds will be after a contract like this. You'd expect him to be "after" a contract like that. He certainly hasn't earned it yet, and he's made it clear that he expects more of himself. This thread is a year too early. In a year he either will have put himself into the conversation for a contract like this, or he won't have.

I don't agree with all of them, but they're defensible and thoughtful. 1) Josh Allen will lead the Bills in rushing yards 2) Emmanuel Sanders and Diggs will both reach 1000 yards ... and three more, including hopeful predictions on Hollister, Epenesa and Levi Wallace. Don't want to steal his content. But all seem very possible to me.

There's no logic to that argument. They do play the same position. But yes, it is indeed about making room for the 90. Making room for the 90 and no more is something they have to do. That's why when they bring in a guy and they've got 90 they will have to let someone go beforehand. There is no limit on how many DLs or DTs you can carry on the roster. Which is why if you want to bring in a guy at a position and you would want to cut another guy at that position to make room, if you have less than 90 on the roster, you would wait till your guy has signed the contract before you would cut the old guy. There is absolutely zero connection between cutting Nazair Jones and bringing in another DT, not unless there are 90 guys already on the roster. And there are not. It's this simple, they cut Nazair Jones at that time because they wanted to cut Nazair Jones at that time.

No, and the question doesn't make particular sense. And ... proof you'd put as little thought into this as it appeared. Jeez.

We're absolutely real quick to the ball. Milano and Edmunds are fast, it's a huge feature for both, and they get more of the tackles than most. Nobody on this D is a Deion Sanders or a Tyreek Hill, but this D is filled with guys who are quick and fast. Fast, heady, multi-faceted, system-based, team-centered. That's how it's constructed. That is why they need Lotulelei in the middle, he (or if he's not in there then Zimmer or whoever else plays 1-tech) clogs things up and eats two on inside runs and that gives the Bills the gap advantage. I don't think we'll ever be the smash-mouth D many here would love to see. They've built this D to defend the pass first, but still be solid against the run. And that's what makes sense these days against modern offenses. We're tough but not slobber-knockers.

Short's more of a 3-tech. He's a penetrator, not a space-eater. Got a nice first step. It's theoretically possible that they could plug him in as a pass-rushing 1-tech on 3rd downs, I guess. But IMO they've got guys to do that, particularly if they occasionally platoon Basham and Rousseau inside on pass rush downs. I think he fits this scheme as a 3-tech like a glove, but not as a 1-tech. Money, injuries and the crowd at the position are all issues. I doubt it. We'll see.

We can be sure that Nazair Jones and the Kawann Short news had nothing to do with each other. Cutting Jones put us three players below the limit instead of two. And Jones was a vet min guy. The Bills get no advantage whatsoever in picking up Short from cutting Jones.

He may well be an upgrade, but not so much of one, IMO. A healthy Brown was a very good route runner and his speed put DBs on tenterhooks every play. Agreed, thanks, OP.

Sully is cranky, but he's been plenty positive over the years many times when it was called for. He just hasn't been around many teams that deserved to have more than bits and pieces of good things said about them. I remember 2011 when Sully said that if things continued as they had - the Bills were 5 - 2 - Gailey deserved consideration for coach of the year. He definitely put the conditional in there, as well he should have, as the Bills ended up 6-10 that year, but when there were good things to be said, Sully has said them. He's still eviscerating the Sabres, deservedly, but he knows the Bills are looking special and he's said it plenty of times. Carucci will be a loss. He's always been a solid, insightful guy.

Nah. The idea's silly. These moves provide zero extra leverage. They certainly don't make the Bills more likely to pay more money. Yeah because other teams love guys who cause trouble, accumulate fines and bring lots of bad media attention. Sorry, makes no sense.

Seems to be from here. https://www.fantasypros.com/2020/01/best-and-worst-rbs-at-creating-yards-in-2019-fantasy-football/ Only took a quick look, but it's still pretty opaque. "Below you’ll find which stats I found particularly relevant to evaluating a player’s yards created profile. More factors can certainly be used, but they are what I felt was most important along with links on where to find them: Adjusted Line Yards Second Level Yards 8+ Defenders in the Box Yards After Contact Per Carry (YCO) Yards Before Contact adjusted for Team Offensive Line Blocking (Adj. YBC) Yards After Catch Per Reception (YAC) Total Touches – smaller sample sizes are less reliable Yards Per Carry (YPC) "Now that we have all of this information, it’s time to blend it together. Each category gets weighted against the league average. Each variable is dependent on others, such as how yards before contact depends directly on blocking and how many defenders are in the box. We can then calculate what each player was expected to gain versus what they actually gained. This difference you see in the chart is what I am labeling as my “yards created above or below expected per attempt.” In the following chart, each running back with over 80 carries on the year is listed along with how well they performed in 2019:" "RB Yards Created Above/Below Expected Per Attempt, Adjusted for Offensive Line, Stacked Box%, Yards Before/After Contact, YAC and Avg YPA"

Thing is, there's no particular reason to think Star is going anywhere next year. We have nobody to take his place. Bringing in an FA would cost as much as Star or more, for probably a lower level of play. Drafting a replacement and this regime doesn't generally play rookie draftees much, particularly early in the year. Addison's likely to be gone, but they won't save a penny. His contract ends this year except for $2M in dead cap next year. Same for Hughes He might not be here but we won't save any cap. Next year, with the current guesstimate of a cap, we have $1,563,548 available under the cap as calculated right now (Spotrac). Even assuming Star, Mario and Jerry are all gone next year that would raise our available cap money all the way up to about $4M. I don't see that bringing in another impact player. We'll cut some guys and re-negotiate and the cap will probably be a bit higher than Spotrac is guessing. But we aren't going to be rolling in it.

I see. Except for the Beasley stuff, what you say here makes sense to me. Edmunds absolutely needs to be making continuous improvement, as do they all. That's what you said, and it totally hits the nail on the head. I'm not convinced they expect him to put this team on his back. My feeling is that you're right when you say they expect him to make others better around him, particularly as signal caller and an up-the-middle guy on this defense. But "carry the team to victory"? I don't see them expecting that. I think you're right that they hope to see him become dominant at his position. He really does have quite a bit of achievable improvement available to him, even though he's already playing very well. But to me, this team is about a system in which they want everyone to play their part as well as they possibly can. I don't see anyone on this D putting anyone on their back and carrying them. On offense, a truly great QB can do that. On this D I don't see anyone doing that unless they can somehow get someone to rush the passer at an extremely high level. We're probably saying the same things here, using different words. I really am looking forward to seeing the defense this year. Healthy and with Star and a couple of rookie stud pass rushers filtering in to play their parts, IMO things look really good. As for Beasley, though, he's said, "If I'm forced into retirement, so be it." What's he talking about there? It's absolutely clear they aren't forcing anyone to retire because they're not vaccinated. So it looks to me like he's saying there may be some things they require of him as an unvaccinated person that he wouldn't be willing to do, that he'd rather retire than follow some of those regulations. Hope I'm wrong and you're right. It certainly could be. But he's said that he talked to the NFLPA and that, "From what I'm told these are guidelines for preseason and it's nothing final." So what if those requirements that he doesn't accept do become final? Or if the regulations for the season turn out to be the same as the ones for the preseason? What does he do? https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/31660735/buffalo-bills-wr-cole-beasley-addresses-vaccination-concerns-nflpa I don't think we know. Oh, and you were using a synonym of "grab," hunh? Got it. Took me a minute or so, though.

Trying to figure out what you suggested they might do to a name player. Very much on target. I was so shocked that they could and then that they would re-sign all of Milano, Daryl Williams and Feliciano. That made it a fine off-season for me. I guess I'd disagree that Trubisky in any way creates competition. IMO he creates good 2nd string depth. I also don't think it's fair to compare Tremaine Edmunds to Lawrence Taylor or JJ Watt. He doesn't have their physical talent. Edmunds is fast, and he's strong, but not as sudden as either of those guys and probably not as stronge either. There's a reason Edmunds was drafted 16th and Lawrence Taylor 2nd. They manifestly had different levels of physical talent ceiling than Edmunds does. Same with Kuechly, really. His 40 was a bit slower than Edmunds, but look at his 10 and 20 yard splits. He was more sudden while Edmunds has a higher top speed. Kuechly was also a lot stronger (27 reps vs. 19 for Tremaine). Hopefully he can get to Kuechly territory if things go really well, but there's zero indication that he should ever be mentioned with Watt and Taylor. They were drafted earlier for a reason, Taylor in particular because he had sacks and INTs in college that were out of this world. They're QB attackers. As good as he was at everything, the reason Taylor is venerated is because he sacked and threatened QBs constantly, something Edmunds is never likely to do as an off-ball LB. Comparing him to those guys, outside maybe Kuechly, isn't reasonable. And like the others you mentioned, Kuechly was picked significantly earlier, 9th, and for good reason. And while I'm hopeful as you are about Beasley, the guy has said he's willing to quit rather than obey the NFL regulations on this issue. Hopefully he was just blowing off steam, but there's a far wider range of possibilities for him this season than Bills fans seem willing to admit. He used to be my favorite Bill, particularly after I learned about the broken leg. But otherwise I really agree with the thrust of your whole post. Continuity is a big part of the process and we've got a ton of that this year.

Hap, I've always assumed that they could contact each other, though as you say, the team couldn't require contact. I'm willing to learn, though. I could certainly be wrong.

Thanks for the interesting safety discussion the last page or two. Great stuff.