Thurman#1

AJ Klein isn't half the LB that Edmunds is. Not a third. And the idea that you should dominate every week to make big money is nonsense. Everyone has bad games. Everyone. Edmunds has very few, but he does have them. Again, everyone does. Believe it or not, the idea that if someone is not a special player you shouldn't pay him big money does not originate with you. And it shows how wrong you are. There are teams dying to pay him money. Because he is special. Perhaps not in the way that you and many want. But that rush to pay him shows precisely that he is special, if you couldn't get that just from the Minnesota game. Oh, yes, please. Would anybody not? I suspect that's why he's not on the ballot.

Yes, precisely.

We've seen his ceiling? He's a guy who's gotten better consistently, including a major jump again this year. He's 24 years old. There is zero reason to think we've seen his ceiling.

Virgil, if he really didn't make big plays, why do so many GMs want him so bad? Sorry, man, that argument has never made a bit of sense. His big plays aren't as visible or as exciting as some, and many can't get past this. But all you have to know is how very much better the D is when he's out there. There's a reason for that, and the reason is that he's affecting play, particularly in the pass game, all the damn time, making the QB's decisions a lot harder consistently. Go back and look at the Minnesota game. He played the first half and was out for the second. That was the only difference in personnel, but our D looks like two completely different groups, and the one on the field when Edmunds was out was vastly worse. Again, #4 against the pass when he was playing this year, and #27 when he was not. That is a guy who is affecting play a great deal, even if it's not in an obvious, visible way.

London Fletcher was really really good. He is still under-appreciated here. He was as good or better at run defense than Edmunds, IMO. But Edmunds is significantly better at pass defense. With the rules today so favoring the pass, I take Edmunds. It's only a seeming certainty in the heads of yourself and a few others, most of whom seem desperate for that outcome. What you've got there is wishful thinking. And imprecise thinking. The reality is that it could easily go either way. If it showed on the field, he wouldn't be getting the offers he is going to be getting. The argument is simply stupid. There is one place where it shows up, though. I have to admit that. It definitely shows up in the heads of a significant number of Bills fans.

No, he, like every other human on earth, should be judged, even in specific contexts like how good he is as an NFL head coach, based on many things. Yeah, wins and losses might be the biggest thing, but there's plenty more. And Sean in in wins and losses is very good.

Squandering the QB on a rookie contract doesn't mean you blew it. Sometimes you make enough right moves and things go wrong. If Von Miller hadn't been injured, Miller particularly but also Hyde and all the others, and if we hadn't had that bizarre season with Hamlin and a mass shooter and blizzards and so on, leading to that weird game where the Bills just seemed like they just didn't play like the Bills we know, IMO we'd have won it. No way to know that. Oh, and Josh injuring his elbow. But while we missed out, there's no particular reason to think we blew it. Sometimes, stuff happens. That is a universal truth.

While not absolutely everybody thinks the Bills are well run, yes people have said the Bills are well run. In fact, that's what the huge majority of people around the league say. Not that they were well-run between Polian and the current regime, but now, certainly yes. Um, yes. Yes, I do think Josh will end up with more rings than Rodgers or Favre. Not a sure thing, but it's a pretty decent bet. He's got easily 10 - 12 years to try.

Totally disagree. I see where you're coming from. But if by doing this, they significantly improve the odds of getting a QB who's legitimately one of the top QBs in the league, it's completely worth having given up those low-cost years. Now, if Love isn't one of those QBs, they've magnified the damage they've done that team, but they weren't going to be winning any SBs anyway if he's not good enough. In that case, they missed out on the ideal situation, but landed (assuming he's what they think he is) in a situation that is not ideal but is still the second-best situation, a situation that probably 25 of the 32 teams would sell their left hand find themselves in. And if Love isn't that guy, trying their best to get every year out of their prima donna was their best chance to pick up a Lombardi anyway. The last three SBs in a row have been won by QBs not on rookie contracts. The key factor in KC's two SBs was having Mahomes. In only one of their two SB victories did they have him on a rookie contract. The key factor in their future success will be whether or not Love is a great QB. If they increased the chances of their having a great QB, they done good.

You're blaming Oliver - or desperately trying, anyway - for the fact that the Chiefs scored on the drive that he got his sack? That says far more about you than about Oliver. It says you don't like the guy and you're willing to use even illogical arguments to attack him. Oliver's been one of the Bills top five or six players this year. He's also gotten better each year. Certainly not impossible, almost nothing is, but if it happens it will leave a massive hole they can't fill right now.

"Definitely," in the sense of "it's possible, but probably not"? Yeah, maybe in that sense.

Yup, very solid chance of that, as there's room for improvement right now at guard, safety if Poyer is gone, MLB if Tremaine is gone and maybe slot. Could be done without spending a ton.

Aw, come on. Yes, it's flexible. And for owners who don't mind mortgaging the future, very flexible. But no, you really can't have as much space as you want this year, much less in the future. Real quick, can you point out the way to get us, say $100M on the cap this year? Can't be done. If you turn over every rock and twig, you could get to around $80M, but it would leave us with very little flexibility next year. The credit card analogy is right on target. Yeah, I could use my cards and apply for a bunch more and stretch them all to the limit and get myself a Lambo. But doing that would mean I'd better get used to major lifestyle cuts elsewhere, and at some point it might become necessary to sell that Lambo used to handle some more urgent needs. The reason Jalen Ramsey (and possibly Bobby Wags as well) is available is the Rams are having to throw the life jackets and the seats out the doors to try to save fuel. They cut Floyd at the cost of $19M in dead cap, even though it only saves them $3M on the cap. Why? Because they were well above the cap in 2024 as well as 2023. Taking all the dead money this year means Floyd won't cost them money in 2024, but Floyd was really good for them.

Of course they'll be players. They are every year. Expect them to pick up some mid- and low-level guys to fill holes so that their needs are no longer desperate for the draft. I wouldn't expect them to be headline players, though.

We do go after assets like this. Every year. Da'Quan, for instance. Lawson. Those were FAs, but we do trades too. Diggs. Keen. Hines. Marlowe. It goes on and on. They might not be the assets you want, but we go after assets. And assuming that because we don't get something that we didn't go after it is ridiculous. And we absolutely are a contender. Ask Vegas. People always assume that because we didn't get someone that we must not have tried. Doesn't make sense. Maybe the Ravens (and other teams) didn't make the same offer to us that they did to the Jets or whoever. They might feel much happier trading an asset to the Jets, who aren't as much of an AFC threat, than the Bills. The Bills might feel that they have better uses for that cap money. They might feel that the guy doesn't fit here. They might be working on another move to acquire by trade or FA a safety they like better. I could go on and on.

Sure looked to me more like the heat beat the Bills than the Dolphins. How many guys were out with cramps and getting I.V.s?

Yeah, I get it. You've got something you want and you look at all the data through that lens. It's a really good way to make your thinking inaccurate. I mean, you're simply wrong if you think that's a fact. It's not. It's an opinion. Unless you're actually Tremaine or his agent operating under cover, it's an opinion. Certainly could happen, though. Definitely a possibility.

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.