Thurman#1

Kelce can say hello, but it wasn't like they just put Edmunds on him. That was a failure of the whole defense. And the idea that a two-time Pro Bowler given a $12M option is average is dumb. So is the idea that Beane gives an average guy $12M hoping maybe he'll get better.

I think it's a bit more than that, personally. I think he was a bit of a locker room problem for Carroll later in his stay in Seattle. He seemed to think that he and the defensive corps had the right to do anything, including directly and publicly criticize and obstruct Carroll and Russell Wilson. He went on publicly about how Carroll was treating Wilson differently, how Carroll should have given the ball to Marshawn, and so on. And he crystallized a lot of the D guys together into almost an anti-Carroll block. Of course your starting elite QB is going to be treated a bit differently. That's why they have red jerseys. Those guys, top franchise QBs are absolutely different. Sherman didn't get that. While the salary cap also had a lot to do with the breakup of that team, the obstruction Carroll experienced from that D also had a part in it. Having said that, since then he's been no problem. Looks to me like he grew up after that. You can disagree with your coach, but you keep it in-house, you talk privately with him, and you understand that he outranks you. From what I can tell, he's learned that lesson. But there was a while when he appeared to be directly causing locker room problems. At this point in his career, I wouldn't mind him at all. But he won't be a vet min type guy and I'm not sure it would be enough of an upgrade for them to bring him in. If they think so, I'll yield to their expertise. What they've got appears to be a solid group. And I'd fully expect them to bring in a couple more guys for competition. IMO, no problem.

Future commitments of cash, whether or not they're guaranteed, can be traded away. The team that acquires the guy will acquire the commitment. Commitments of cash that have already been met (in other words, money that's already been paid to the player) can not be traded away. Signing bonuses or roster bonuses or anything already paid must be accounted for on the cap of the team that paid the money.

Thoughtful post, obviously coming from a good place. Thank you for the kind words. I guess that there's so much hate of Edmunds from the same group of people that I end up balling it all together and treating it as one source, one phenomenon. I shouldn't do that so much. A lot of the is knee-jerk scapegoating. Most of it, IMO. But that doesn't mean there aren't some thoughtful people who simply disagree. If I've got a problem in my behavior, it's that I tend towards being cranky and brusque in my writing. Oughta be more diplomatic and amiable. I work on it, but I generally disappoint myself. I often write cranky posts and then go back fifteen minutes later to soften things. A lot of time the person has already seen it and it's too late. If I offended you, I'm genuinely sorry. I still disagree with a lot of what you said, though. What do I think about Star and why they gave him the money? It's clear to me that they gave him the money because he was worth it, that he's done a very good job here, and that he was greatly missed last year, particularly early as they struggled to take guys they'd expected to put in roles better suited to their skill sets and instead spent a long time trying to figure out how to replace what they'd lost with Star. Having nobody like him, they had a very hard time doing it, but in so doing they also played guys out of position, changed roles and generally changed how their D that had been extremely successful the year before worked. Yeah they then with money problems asked for $1.75M back in the third year of his $50M contract, also giving him an extra year's guarantee and a year beyond that guaranteed against injury. Both sides got something from that. And yeah, they gave Addison the money. It's a lot harder to predict how a guy will fit and play in your D when he hasn't been in your locker room for years as Tremaine has. As for Edmunds and the money, McDermott is a top-flight defensive mind. I honestly don't know how anyone can argue that. And he supports and works to keep Edmunds here. He does that because the guy does what McDermott sees as his job. Not perfectly. But very well. Plenty here don't like his style, they obviously want a different style of guy. Many want a pounder, the old-fashioned type of MLB. He'll never be that. I do watch Edmunds play and I did think he was a legit pro bowl caliber player ... after he recovered from his injury. So did the Pro Bowl voters. We can't say for sure about Pro Bowl status, but it's a decent bet that so did Beane and McDermott if they paid him $12M for an off-ball LB. But they're not the only ones. The fact is, that's the consensus. Most people think so. I didn't keep track of off-ball LB play throughout the AFC. Can't speak directly to that. But I do keep track of play generally, and there are a bunch of good LBs there in the AFC. How well they played last year specifically I don't know. But after the first six weeks or so, as Edmunds' arm got better and McDermott schemed around the loss of Star and found band-aids and stopgaps that stopped most of the bleeding, Edmunds played very well. Again, I can't compare to other ILBs around the AFC this particular year, but very well. I haven't kept track of your status on Tremaine. You don't come across here as a hater, though obviously I thought you did a bit in the last one. You do come across as a person who is drastically underestimating Edmunds. As far as the hater thing, there are a bunch of them out there. From this post, you do not appear to be one of them. People here come across like villagers with pitchforks on Edmunds, Star and to a lesser degree, Ed Oliver. And I don't understand why. When they had Star in 2019, had a 2nd year Edmunds and a rookie Oliver, they were an elite defense, and we still heard constant criticism from this certain group despite overwhelming, well-deserved praise of the D from around the league. Last year they started with injuries to Oliver and Edmunds and with the optout of Star. The D started very slow but as Oliver and Edmunds got healthy and McDermott found ways to scheme a 1-tech rather than having Star eat space, they became a top ten D. I really don't get it. This is a good group.

Good stuff.

Edwards-Helaire weighs about 15 pounds more, 195 to 209, and had better numbers on his athletic drills. None of which will mean anything if Patterson can find someone to take a chance on him.

Hunh. Thanks for posting that, OP. Clears things up a bit. I wonder if we'd have taken him if healthy. Or if he'd even have reached us.

True. But how come you're not complaining about the offense only scoring 24 points in "the game that mattered." And nobody had opted out on that side of the ball. You don't judge a unit by how they performed in one game only. It's simply not fair to do so. The defense played very well after the first six games. Yes, the Chiefs offense was just better. But they're better than nearly everyone they played, particularly if you look at games when their OL wasn't badly depleted by injury as they were against Tampa Bay. Not that they don't need to improve. They seem very aware that they need to improve the pass rush for one thing.

I guess you'd know better than I if they're not haters. But that's how they come across. They're not realists, not even close. Something along the lines of Edmunds chronic underestimators. The team makes it obvious again and again that they like the guy, that the FO thinks he's doing a good job, after he got healthy anyway. And these people continue not to get it. They've said again and again that it's too much money, as you say here. And thing is, it's not. This is a front office that is all about careful cap management. Not that they've been perfect at it of course. Nobody is. But overall they've gotten good value and the overpayments have pretty much been for FAs from other teams. You folks are saying it's too much because you're not looking at his role the way the Bills do. The realists are the people who thought it was wildly likely that he'd be given the option, that he was worth it and it wasn't really a question. The ones who were proven right here. Not that he doesn't need to keep improving. They all do, every player. He's certainly one that does, and I think he's already talking about how he's going to improve next year. But he's also a really good player. They gave him that money because he's worth it. The kids do say FACTS. A lot of them say it about things that are clearly wacky, though, and that's the way it looks here as well. Hater may not be the right word, but Edmunds is chronically underestimated and attacked by people who are theoretically fans of the team and the players.

Completely inaccurate, actually. Could be right or wildly wrong on any of them. Here's how it actually goes: Moss is under contract for 3 more years at the moment. Singletary is presently under contract for two more years. And Breida is here on what is right now a one-year contract. How long they'll be here is unknown.

They're in. Very silly this early, but in. About three years from now we'll know how good the draft actually was. Fun to talk about now, though. That's fair enough, but it doesn't mean anything. And by the way, ever notice how the teams with two 1sts are always near the top for being smart? And the teams with few early picks ... nobody thinks they picked well. And the teams with higher picks tend towards the top of the rankings as they generally have splashier picks? All part of the fun, but it's all silly.

Yeah, hard to understand why anyone would defend a guy who has them at 13-3. Wacky. They need to start understanding how terrible a GM this guy is. You keep trying to convince them. Listening? That hypothetical is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. The guys he drafted show will have a real chance to make the team stronger. The way to play the draft is to value BPA slightly modified by avoiding positions with zero need whatsoever. We have needs at Edge and Tackle. The way to target specific positions is to use FA, which there is a great deal of time to do. Now, if he'd picked seven tackles you'd actually have a point, but until he does, you really don't.

People keep saying that about Star, that they're likely to part ways with him. There is no reason to think it's true, none. Particularly the way we just drafted. We wouldn't save much money at all. If they cut him after this year there would be $5.1M in dead cap money and we'd save his $6.15M salary and $600K in roster and workout bonus. Unless Star regresses, there's a good chance he'll be here for a while.

Yeah, he really did start looking good near the end. I'm excited about Epenesa's possibilities.

I've always seen him listed as 6' 7". Maybe you've seen something else somewhere? I checked and he hadn't gone to the combine, so there's no measurement there. I really doubt these guys will be guards, but you never know for sure.

This is a silly take. We'll know whether it was a good pick down the road when we find out whether or not he's a good player. That's the fact. Picks aren't judged by what position they are at. They are judged by whether the player picked is a good value for the pick down the road.

A triple negative. Nice. But what do you actually mean? Your first sentence seems to contradict your second.

That DT wasn't a rookie who was struggling to learn his own role. Giving a 10 year vet a few extra plays is different. Down the road I can see him doing tackle eligible stuff. IMO he'll be concentrating on working hard on learning what he needs to do to become a good NFL tackle. If there are other things after that, great, but I think that's very likely to be his first five priorities. Someone talked about being an extra tackle on the end. Yeah, that could make sense, I think, particularly if it comes later in the year after he's found his feet a bit.

They need Tremaine back. If they can instead work on signing him to a contract, a contract that would not have too much impact this next year, that would be great too. One or the other.

Our other needs have all been addressed. Perhaps not to your satisfaction, which is fair enough, but they've been addressed by bringing our own guys back, with FAs, etc. At CB for instance they re-signed Levi Wallace. Two DEs if they were the best players available makes total sense. BPA at positions of need is the smartest draft philosophy. And even after Rousseau we still had a need there, short-term and long-term. Drafting for need is the worst draft strategy, the refuge of the desperate. FA is the strategy best used for targeting positional areas for improvement. And the offseason isn't over. Not even close.

Good thing then, that her formula is not spitting out project first rounders. He'll have some impact this year. How much is tough to calculate, but he'll play. I agree that 0.65 is high, probably. But it's interesting and thoughtful. WAR is fine in football. It's not precise but there's thought and method behind it.

This is an excerpt from this article. https://www.nfl.com/news/2021-nfl-draft-justin-fields-rashawn-slater-among-day-1-s-top-value-picks "The Bills brilliantly add versatility and youth at a true value with this pick, considering Rousseau was No. 16 on my board. Tracking his 2019 data (he opted out in 2020) shows he lined up all over the defensive front and was productive in each spot. From the first game to his last that season, Rousseau steadily improved his average time to pressure (which was adjusted for alignment). Rousseau checks both the "ideal" boxes of measurement for body mechanics at the position (low center of gravity, excellent body control). His résumé also includes playing safety, as well as offense, in high school, which suggests we haven't even seen what his development ceiling looks like. Defensive-minded Sean McDermott likely understands this puzzle piece extremely well, and the fit is a great predictor of January football in Buffalo. Rousseau adds 0.65 wins to the 2021 Bills."

That's less on Clemson and more on bad drafting by the various old Bills FOs.

I almost never vote in these things. And I won't start now. But anyone voting no is just a sad sad specimen, honestly. 13 - 3 and widely considered to have one of the solidest rosters in the NFL. Some folks just don't get it. EDIT: Ah, I see, there are two questions and one is pretty weird. OK, fair enough. "Will you be good with whoever?" isn't necessarily a yes. But "do you trust this front office?" should be a yes. Any other answer just doesn't make sense.

IMO you're framing it wrong. It's too simplistic. There is no one player who will have much direct immediate effect. Maybe if we were drafting top twelve or so, but we're not. At 30, you want guys who will give you some impact. If we win the SB, IMO it will be about the development of our younger developing guys, the continuity continuing to have good effects, a lack of bad injuries, a whole bunch of things coming together.