Thurman#1

He is not a tier 2 guy. All you have to do is look at his market to see that. It's nonsense. He's not elite. But he's really good. Certainly no Daniel Jones or Derek Carr. Although actually, Carr is pretty damn good in the right situation. If they lose Tremaine, you might be right that they have to switch up the defense a little. But they don't want to do that. It's not a mistake that they've run the same defense since Carolina, or that they paid big money to the two LBs in Carolina that played the Edmunds and Milano spots. Or that they've been consistently successful doing so. And again, he is a game changer, just not in the way that many people mean it. With him this year they were the 4th best pass defense. When he was out, the 27th best. That's a game changer. You can see it in the Minny game.

Yeah. Except for the many times it isn't.

Look, you can kid yourself that the Bills defense isn't good. But that's what you're doing. Kidding yourself. They held the Bengals to their season average, with Von Miller, Hyde and Da'Quan Johnson out, Poyer shuffling around like an octogenarian, White not nearly himself yet in his recover and Phillips trying to replace Da'Quan with one arm. Nobody wants to talk about this, clearly, as I've mentioned it about five times so far in this thread and got crickets. But the defense wasn't awful in that game, despite the injuries. They weren't good, but they weren't awful. The offense was absolutely awful. They bear most of the burden for that loss, and I bet if you asked Allen he'd agree 100%. You folks trying to blame the Cincy loss on the defense are missing the point by an order of magnitude. They get a share of the blame, but it was mostly the offense. Our defense held the Bengals to their season's average, with horrendous injuries. Our (healthy) offense scored more than ten points less than the Bengals defense allowed on average.

No, that's nonsense. Yes, Allen is the linchpin. But it's not a mistake that people have consistently been putting us in the top three of roster strength the last couple of years. The whole roster is strong. If last year was the real Gabe Davis, they got a guy in the fourth round who is a legitimate #2 receiver. That's really good. He may get better, or may not, but he was a good acquisition and is now a good receiver. Not great, certainly. But absolutely good. Yes, I'd like to see them use some resources on the receiver room. But that's more about not having much beyond Diggs and Davis and a very young Shakir.

Yes, "we've seen other teams draft late rounders and turn them into HOFs," as you say. But it's rare. However, it is certainly a good possibility that it will happen with Milano. He was All-Pro last year. Thought I'd do a quick research project on all of the many late round draft HOFers you're referring to as to be make it surprising to you that we haven't managed it yet in six years. They have to be retired for five years minimum, so it's no use looking at recent players. Thought I'd look at 1990 - 1999 just to see how often it happens. I looked at the fourth round and further back 1990 Shannon Sharpe, round 6 in a 12 round draft 1991 none 1992 none 1993 none, and the draft has been shortened to 8 rounds 1994 none 1995 Terrell Davis round 6 1996 Zack Thomas round 5 1997 none 1998 none 1998 none In that same group of ten years, 37 HOFers were drafted in the first three rounds. And after that, three in the fourth and later. So you're really waving a very rare phenomena around and pretending it happens all the time and it's surprising, when it's anything but. Yes, we haven't flipped for a draft capital gain. That's because we don't do a lot of trading away of our best players. How many of our best have we traded. They make a goal of developing and keeping players. That's why we haven't. "We draft 1-2nd round players and trade them for peanuts. The list is extensive," you say. I think it's fair to say that your definition of the word "extensive" is pretty much opposite of the one you'll find in the dictionary. Of all the twelve 1st and 2nd rounders drafted by this regime, Zay Jones, Cody Ford and nobody else have been traded. The other ten are all still on the team, though Tremaine is a free agent. Two is not @extensive" by any definition. Your post is pretty much counter-factual about "extensive" and genuinely wacky about most of the rest of it.

He is a game changer. He changes games, like that Minny game. Just not the way that some people want to see them changed. Beane is subject to the salary cap. He has to give up guys he'd rather keep every year, going right back to Robert Woods. You could very well be right about signing Von. We can totally agree there. Beane went outside his comfort zone there, consciously, knowing something else would have to give. But again, we don't know Edmunds is gone yet. Might be. But we'll have to see.

"Once is a mistake. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a pattern," you say? Oh, my God, you absolutely cracked me up there. Here's how that should look in the real world. "Once is the beginning of a pattern. Twice is the continuation of a pattern. Three times is yet more data to add to the data. Four times is more data, we're getting a bit of a picture, five times ... aaaaand 57 times is all the data. Now we have a pattern." Here's what you don't do next if you are looking for clear logical thinking, "OK, now which games can we throw out to make the data look the way it feels to me?" Here's how your way of looking at the data actually is. "Once is ... oh, wait, I'm not interested in that game. Twice is ... oh, wait, they played well, I'll ignore that. Three times is ... no, this isn't supporting my prejudices, I'll ignore it. Let's see, four, no, five, no, six, no, ignore all that ... lessee, twelve, no, boy this is work, looking at all this data and realizing I have to ignore it to make my argument .... um ... OK, nope, nope, nope, nope. OK, um, game 18, nope, they were terrific, throw that out, game 19 ... AH HA!!!! At last a game that supports my view. OK, let's put that one into the set that we look at and keep moving on . [two hours later] AH HA!!!! I found another game that supports my pre-existing biases. Game 38 fits my ideas perfectly [two more hours later] AH HA!!! I found a third game out of the 57 that I looked at. Actually, this game, game #57, isn't really at all similar to the other two, games #19 and #38. I mean, the defense held Cincy to their average score despite massive injury problems. The reason we lost that game was really the offense. But, hell, I'll call it a pattern!! Yeah!! I found a pattern!" Or to greatly shorten your real argument, "Game #19 fits my ideas, Game #38 fits my ideas. And game #57 kinda sorta fits my ideas. SEE? It's no coincidence that out of 57 games I found three that fit my biases!!! It's a PATTERN!!" Yeah, it's a pattern. A pattern that you are seeing only what you want to see. Dude, you can pretend that "being OK" with something has some importance. But it doesn't. Means nothing. It's just an excuse to throw out the data that you're "not OK with." It's real simple. If you want to be correctly informed, look at all the data. All of it. Every single game. Then you are looking at things correctly and can make an informed decision. You are a walking talking example of confirmation bias here. You are throwing out 95% of the data, cherry-picking the 5% that supports your feelings and perceptions and looking only at that 5%. Pretending that you can prove something by looking only at 5% of the data. You can't. Or rather, you can, but the only thing you prove is your own passionate motivation, your desperation to make your argument even if it means making ridiculous arguments. You aren't. Equally true on my side. I can't throw out any games either. But I'm not. I'm looking at every game. It's true that they're a terrific defense, but equally true that they've had some problems in three games and three key games. Would they have had those problems if they didn't have to play Jaquan Johnson, Cam Lewis and Dane Jackson so much, if Jordan Peterson, replacing Da'Quan, hadn't been playing with one arm, and if the five other injury cases hadn't been injured? Well, actually, we'll never know. Can't assume anything either way, but it's worth keeping in mind as a legitimate question. Would they have continued playing as hot as they were when Von was healthy? Could be. Equally, maybe not. Worth considering, though. We clearly don't need major changes, but can we do something else to make us even better? I know Beane will continue working his ass off to find something. I hope he does.

I'm not padding the stats. I'm just looking at everything that happened. It's you who's actively ignoring the stuff you don't agree with. Classic confirmation bias. Flawed thinking. He absolutely is a game changer. Again, with Edmunds in this year, we were #4 against the pass. With Edmunds out, #27. Wanna see a game change? Look at our defensive performance against the Vikings. With Edmunds in in the first half, the defense was strong. With Edmunds out, the game totally turned and we were shredded. That's what happens when you take a game changer out. Teh game changed. He's a terrific player. Cam Lewis was actually OK in that game, with the exception of that one stupid play. And yeah, Allen had some bad turnovers in that game but that was the offense. The defense played great with Edmunds. And awful without him.

Sorry, man, that's just wrong You're not looking at their playoff record. You're looking only at the three playoff games that best make your point. You're looking at a dataset of 40+ games and looking only at three and throwing out the rest, and thinking that makes a point. That's flawed thinking. In fact, overall they've been a good playoff defense overall. Yes, three bad games. But again, looking only at those games says more about you and what you want to believe than it does about the defense. More, the offense was much much worse than the defense was against the Bengals, and yet nobody blames them despite the fact that they were healthy and the defense was a shell of itself from the injuries. If Von Miller and Da'Quan Jones had been healthy, if Hyde had played, and if Poyer weren't hobbling and if White was as good as he's likely to be next year, the defense would have been much much better. And we'd still have lost because of how awful the offense played.

I should have waited to finish my thought before replying. Try reading my last answer (the edited version) again. How can they be worse? Yeah, hard to figure out how the #4 DVOA defense could be worse. (That was sarcasm. There is a huge amount of room for them to be a worse defense next year than they have been. They've been really good.) And again, looking only at three games in three years and ignoring the rest says more about you than it does about the D.

Honest answer. Narrowing down what you're looking at to three games only (one of which when many to most of teh most crucial players were out for injury or playing well below standard because of injury) and throwing out the rest shows an urge to reach a pre-selected conclusion. They've been an excellent defense. That may be an honest question, but it's not a difficult one to answer.. Of course they can be worse. Much much much worse.

It's more complicated than that. You don't have to be dumb to make mistakes at acquiring football personnel. Absolutely everyone does it, as it's inherently extremely difficult to predict future behavior in extremely complicated systems. Best that can be done is to improve the percentage of good decisions. Jones is still really early in his career. People who think they know how he'll do - either way - are kidding themselves, they're guessing. I'd have paid him, myself. Without full faith that he'd be a great player. But with the feeling that it was the best decision at the time.

Guess people should have noticed when he did. But many didn't. Again, when Edmunds was on the field this year we were the #4 pass defense. When he was off the field, #27. That Vikings game was when it really showed. The D was playing really well. Tremaine got injured and after that the whole D was really bad. The difference was stark. I'm not fearful of change. But I'm also not a dullard. Some changes work out really well. Others cause huge problems and reduce efficiency and performance. Denying that change often causes major regression is ignoring reality. The reason that Tremaine and Poyer have a chance to make huge bucks is real simple. They're extremely good players. And Edmunds is both really realy good and really young. Losing a player like that is a huge blow. They'll be replaced (assuming they are actually leaving). It is likely to cause regression, particularly early, but really lasting a while.

You're absolutely right. And there really are people on here who ignore it and are happy about this. Somewhat nutty people, but they're here and they're loud. Losing either will be a blow. Losing both will seriously set this defense back. For a while. They'll be replaced, and Beane will do a good job, but being in a system for so long has benefits that won't be found in their replacements for a while in terms of instincts and understanding. People are going to be confused about how come we're allowing so many passes to the middle of the field.

We were supposed to lose Milano too. It could easily happen. But in the end, we won't know till we know.

Congrats!!! That's great news. Best wishes for health and happiness for all. They did clear up that space. Listening since then, they don't actually think the Bills will clear up that much. Agreed, he'll make some of them, and he'll be right in there trying to find bargains among mid- to low-priced FAs. He's been good at it, not perfect, of course, but definitely good.

I know, I mean Hodgins is a real talent. 392 yards. Wow!! I mean, he almost got as many as our other Isaiah who we may well not re-sign. I mean, Hodgins cleared 42 yards in ... how many .... in one game. Holy moses!!!!! And Gabe vs. Hodgins, 7 TDs vs. 4 TDs is not "on par." Nor is more than double the yards. If there's anyone he's close to on par with, it's McKenzie. One example is that McKenzie and Hodgins both had 4 TDs.

Minus $14M on the cap this year. Next year, 2024, they're less than a million over.

Moving on? Maybe. I'm not convinced, but maybe. Talking about moving on? Publicly? At this point? Dumb, IMO.

It's not "whoever they want." We never hear about all the folks they'd like to sign but can't or couldn't. The cap is real the way the guy in the Santa suit at the mall is real. Very. That guy might be flexible, as the cap is. But he exists and affects the world. The instant your team gives a dollar to a player, that dollar will hit the cap. No way to prevent it. You can delay it. And when you do you will have less money to spend on other things down the road. "ALWAYS" is absolute nonsense. The correct way to say that would be "sometimes." If your income goes up but you've already spent the extra, the raise just doesn't mean much to what you can buy. Yup, the credit card is an excellent analogy. Just as you can spend too much on your credit card and get yourself in trouble, teams can do the same with the cap. Doing it limits their options.

It helped that Texas ran 47% pass plays. Will Buffalo do the same? He is really good, no question. But picking him runs into opportunity cost problems and the fact that you don't want to take the ball out of Josh's hands too much.

Many of us have asked for that. Many of us have asked for a lot of things, some bizarre, some reasonable, some might happen, others probably not. People shout a lot of stuff from the cheap seats. They've fielded an excellent defense for a long time now. No particular reason to think they'll change the scheme unless forced to by circumstances. And part of the reason Milano in particular can run around with his hair on fire is precisely that that Edmunds is behind them not running around with his hair on fire, being more analytical, diagnosing and filling holes. They play complementary roles.

13 seconds won't. But there's certainly a non-zero chance that Leslie Frazier will. It's you who's kidding yourself that he won't be back if things fall right. There's a good chance they won't fall right, but if they do, they love Frazier here, and for good reason. This is my guess too.

You really can not. Unfortunately. There is some flexibility that smart GMs can take advantage of. But you can absolutely screw yourself. Which the Rams did, and that's why they're looking at options like this. The Bills are under the cap roungly $17M for this year, but for next year still over by about $14M, though that will go down as they fiddle with extensions and such to get under for this year. The Rams on the other hand are under the cap for $14M this year and already under the cap for next year by $19M. They're in trouble. And you can get there - quick - by making enough dumb moves. Sorry, man, that's simply not true. Was Geno Smith undervalued? The answer is an obvious yes. The new contract tells you how wildly undervalued he was. There are plenty of undervaued guys. Scouting is a very imperfect enterprise as it depends a lot on factors like scheme fit, player motivation, situation fit and plenty of others.

He's not average, nor was Russell. Good deal for both sides.