Shaw66

The ball didn't just look fatter - it WAS fatter. Football, after all, evolved out of soccer and rugby somehow, I suppose. In the really early days the ball was more like a rugby ball. It wasn't at all easy to pass it, because it was hard to hold in one hand and because it wasn't nearly as aerodynamic as a well-throw modern football. Some guys started passing, anyway, and as people recognized that the game was more interesting with some passing, they began reshaping the ball to make it easier to throw. Baugh never could put up the numbers that modern passers get, simply because the ball was so much harder to throw. @Logic, jump in here. You read the book. What was the ball like when Baugh played?

I'm just talking about whether it really is so amazing that Baugh's punting average record stood so long. There were reasons. But as a player, by all accounts he was a special, special player in that game. Obviously, I never saw Baugh play. On TV occasionally when I was young I saw highlights of him in his prime. He stood out, completely. Fast, tough, really athletic, could run in the open field, and could throw. And, he was the best punter on the team, by far, at a time when punting was much more important than today. Not that he could survive in the modern NFL, but in his time he was dominant. Like Jim Brown later was dominant in his time.

I first came to Connecticut in 1965, and the next season Coleman began broadcasting the Red Sox. That familiar voice made me a Red Sox fan.

Me too! Frank Ryan, the professor, to Gary Collins for three TDs in the NFL championship game, plus three punts for a 44-yard average. I wanted to be Gary Collins, but I couldn't kick.

Well, the contributions of all of the guys around him are never in doubt. White, Jacks, Elam, Benford, Johnson, Hyde, Poyer, Hamlin. Isn't interesting the oversized, hyper-speedy man in the middle who has started since day one of his rookie season is the only one in the defensive backfield whose contributions are questioned? You seem to think that's an accident, or that the Bills have players all around covering for his weaknesses or something. Do you really think McBeane would have started him for five years if that were the case? The Bills are the ultimate team-oriented defense. Everyone is working to make the other guys better. Edmunds is in the middle because he makes a lot of guys better.

Man! Look at that! I might have said the Biletnikoff of punters, but I guess OBJ is better.

Gary Collins!

Cool. Never heard of him. Looked him up. He was drafted as a placekicker/punter, not a pure punter. He had an unbelievably horrible life story. All state QB in high school in Kansas. Went to Arkansas to replace Joe Ferguson. Turned into a punter-placekicker when he couldn't cut it at QB. Was outstanding in college, drafted in the first round. In the NFL he was horrible - one bad season punting and two bad seasons placekicking. Hours after his release after three seasons, he was in a one-car accident, became a paraplegic, and died in hospice care at age 43. Tragic. Ethan, if you read the rest of the thread, you'll see that Baugh punted in the era of the quick kick, which meant that at least sometimes, and sometimes even several times in a game, he punted from essentially the shotgun on third down with no return man dropped deep. So, (1) he had a 10-yard advantage on those punts, (2) he didn't need hang time, because there would be no return, and (3) he got the benefit of the ball bouncing and rolling downfield, because there was no one back there to pick it up. Punting that way is great for your net yards.

Agree. I used to be good enough at math and physics to figure out how much extra downfield coverage you get when the guy in the middle of the zone has an extra eight or ten inches of reach, based on height and wingspan. It take a while for me to figure it out now, but I'd guess that a 6'2" guy would have to take a three- or four-yard deeper drop to cover the same territory. That means that lining up in the same position as normal linebackers, Edmunds is able to protect 100 square yards more than a normal linebacker. That's significant.

Look, I don't want to take anything away from Sammy Baugh, because he was an all-time great player. But the fact that it took 48 yard to break his record is not a measure of his greatness. It's a measure of how much the game has changed. Baugh was a single-wing back. He ran and he passed. And, yes, he was a good punter but as I said, he got to quick often, which meant that he was punting 10 yards closer to the line of scrimmage than on normal punts, and he got the benefit of the bounce and roll, since no one was back to return it. By the time he retired, teams were quick kicking infrequently, so no one after him had the opportunity to punt with that advantage. You want a measure of how much football changed around the time Baugh retired? Baugh may have been the greatest of all single-wing passers, but the single-wing was dying as the T formation, with the QB under center, began to take over. In 1940, Baugh lost the NFL championship game to Sid Luckman, the first of the great modern quarterbacks, 73-0! Baugh and the then Redskins were blown away playing old-style football. That game was an indication that field position was becoming less important, and by the end of the 40s, none of the pros were playing single-wing. So that 48 year gap happened because punting changed fundamentally. There wasn't another fundamental change until, well, until Ray Guy came along.

Well, this is really interesting, and I thank you for digging out this information, but I think you're misinterpreting the data. As Logic pointed out, before any of us was alive (i.e., for example, in the Sammy Baugh era), because field position was so important, they often punted on second and third down. Those weren't what we think of today as standard punts - the punter didn't drop back 15 yards to avoid the rush of punt blockers. Punts on second and third down were quick kicks - the players would line up in their standard offensive formations and take a direct snap five or six yards behind the line of scrimmage, take a step and punt it. Occasionally, they'd do a quick shift before the snap to get a little depth, but often they just took the snap and kicked it. If I recall correctly, they'd do something like that Aussie-style kick - a step or two to the right and kick it. Quick kicks are the opposite of fake punts. You fake an offensive play and punt instead. When you quick kick, hang time is completely unimportant, because the defense is set up to stop an offensive play and there is no safety deep to return the kick. So, the kicker kicked line drives and the ball just bounced and rolled downfield. Baugh was a good quarterback and also a good kicker, so he was perfect for quick kicks. He'd line up essentially in the shotgun, where he often lined up on offensive plays, and kick it as soon as he got it. He averaged 45 yards a punt because a lot of his punts just bounced and rolled the last 20 yards downfield.

Cool. Thanks. By the time I started watching football in the 50s, the commentators always talked about field position. But by then teams were moving the ball up and down the field better than the earlier eras you're talking about. Still, in the fifties, you knew going for it on fourth down anyplace other than inside the 20 was nuts, completely nuts. Punt it. What the NFL has discovered is that the game is more exciting if offenses are good enough that they can afford to take the risk of going for it. The field position/punting game is dramatic, but boring. And in that game, turnovers were even more important than today. I was generally a Jauron supporter, but he was definitely mired in an earlier era. He was very much a field position guy. He really did believe that punting was a good play. One thing that demonstrates how focus on field position is still important is how the rules about missed field goals have changed. It used to be the case that missed field goal turned the ball over to the other team where the ball was downed, so a missed field goal was often as good as a punt, or resulted in a touchback. In order to get more offense, and to discourage teams from kicking field goals all the time (which is what was going on in the 50s and 60s), they changed it to missed field goals turn over the ball at the line of scrimmage. Then, for the same reasons, they changed it to the spot the ball was kicked from. Those changes kept making offense more and more important, and as that happened, punting became less important.

In terms of pure stats, I'm sure that Ray Guy's numbers no longer stand out. But measured against his era, he was indeed the greatest punter ever. He was taken in the first round, maybe the only punter ever taken in the first round. He could put the ball wherever you wanted it. He could hit the coffin corner. He could get hang time. He could hit line drives over the return man's head. He could run, and he could pass. We all loved Moorman, because he was a weapon. Ray Guy was a much better weapon. He was dominant. Of course, teams scored less and punted more in those days, and punters were more important than they are today. In the field-position-game that they played back then, he was one of the most valuable players in the league.

Hey, thanks for the link. That's excellent, and it explains what I've been seeing. Essentially, he concludes by saying that with defenses going back to two-deep concepts, offenses can win maybe by running, or by having a really good QB, and that's what we're seeing. Allen and Mahomes (and Dak on Sunday) can keep winning, but even Rodgers and Brady can't dominate these defenses. The video doesn't talk a lot about the middle linebacker, but if you watch Edmunds on those plays, he isn't attacking the line of scrimmage. You can see that his job isn't to make tackles at the line of scrimmage - it's to make tackles on running backs who get past the line. The video does explain Edmunds job in some defenses, and it's clear that his brains and recognition, together with his speed and length, is necessary to create problems over the middle for QBs. Interesting video. Thanks. Edit: And, stupid me, now I see that this video explains what I said above about maybe White isn't so important. The video says that what happened in the league around 2010 is that pretty much everyone switched to playing one high safety, and that was the dominant defense for the next decade. Well, with one-high, you really can use a shut-down corner, because one high forces you to leave someone on an island. That's why through the Patriots' glory years they always wrote big checks for a shut-down corner. When you switch to two-high, your need for a shut-down corner declines; you can tell a guy like Dane Jackson that if he does his job correctly, he doesn't have to be overly concerned about getting beat deep. And if you have two guys like Milano and Edmunds roaming the middle of the field, you also can reduce the amount of real estate he's responsible for. All of that means that you need to be able to get pressure on the QB with four guys, which is exactly what McBeane have been saying for years. And that is exactly why we've seen the investment in the D line over the past three seasons. All of which says that Edmunds' job is very important. The question is whether he's one of five guys or one of fifty who can do it.

Thanks. Obviously, there are a lot of characteristics to consider in whom to draft, but on straight physical attributes, that's the kind of guy you want. Not to argue, but just to discuss the point. 1. Unless you're going to list three or four or five late-first-round guys, it's a real crapshoot to let Edmunds walk and then hope Simpson will fall. What do you do if he's gone when you pick at 30? Last year, the Bills wanted a corner, and there were several on the board when the first round started, but there was only one left whom the Bills really wanted when they picked. Trading up to make sure you get him gets expensive. Remember, in personnel, there are two kinds of capital - cash and draft picks. Trading picks is just as costly in terms of capital spent as spending actual dollars. Again, I'm not arguing, just thinking about the merits of a strategy where the Bills expect to replace Edmunds with a first-round pick (or early second round). 2. As for the $14-$18 million, I think one of us is correct and one isn't as to how important that position is. Quarterback is important enough a position that the Bills will spend a lot of both kinds of capital to get and keep the right one - they'll trade players and picks to move up and they'll write $40-$50 million annual checks. I talk often about how teams spend draft capital only on certain positions. First round picks go disproportionately to guys at the most important positions, and the lesser positions get drafted in the first round less often. The Bills burned a lot of draft capital on Edmunds, trading up in the first round to get him. That suggests to me that they got him to play an important position in their scheme, and they thought he was able to do it. The fact that he started from day one suggests that he is exactly what they were looking for. The ONLY evidence that they might want to replace him is that he hasn't been extended yet (and that could have more to do with cap management than how important he is to the scheme). Yes, they drafted Bernard, but a crapshoot in the third round doesn't look to me like dissatisfaction with Edmunds; it was more like a shot in the dark to see if they could find a cheaper replacement. Bottom line, I think that the real question is how important that position is to the scheme the Bills want to play. Let me suggest one thing to think about when considering how important Edmunds is to the scheme: Who among us thought that Levi Wallace, Dane Jackson, Kaiir Elam and Christian Benford could take over primary pass coverage duties without skipping a beat when White went down? Not me, that's for sure. And yet, here we are. Would the outcome against KC last January been different with White in the lineup? Maybe. But, putting that game aside, the Bills defend wideouts just fine without White on the field. Then the Bills lost Hyde; still, not much of a problem. So, maybe in this defense the shut-down corner isn't the key man. Maybe the middle linebacker is. And if the middle linebacker is the lynchpin, then paying him $14-$18 million is cheap. I mean, if Edmunds is the star of the defense, whether we can see it or not, not paying to keep him is like not paying Allen to keep him.

First, I don't think you're correct about being able to find someone to play the position. I don't think so because I think that his extra three inches of height and his extra five-six inches of wingspan over a 6-2 guy makes a big difference on the field. I think it translates into five yards of coverage downfield, and into an ability to cover the middle in the zone more effectively. I think, for example, that the Bills can succeed with Levi Wallace, Dane Jackson, and Benford in part because they have small zones to cover. I think that's true, but I can't say I've heard anyone say it, exactly. What we have heard is a lot of players and player personnel people say he's a freak in the middle of the zone. So, I don't think they can replace him nearly as easily as you think. Second, I have no idea if he gets extended, because I don't know that McDermott thinks he's indispensable. He will be expensive, for sure, but I think the Bills will find the money if they think highly of him. I think it's more likely than not that he's extended. Third, I've been thinking for a few days about what's happening in the NFL. I think that coordinators have figured out how to stop modern NFL passing offenses, except against the very best, like Allen and Mahomes. I think that we're starting to see a shift back to running the ball. Cleveland can win running Nick Chubb this season, but they couldn't two years ago. I have no idea whether that's right, but McDermott knows. If that's right, McDermott is going to be telling Beane to go find a Keuchle, a more traditional run-stopping MLB who can defend the pass. On the other hand, I don't think the NFL will let the league go back to running league, because it's a less interesting product for TV. I think, as I've said before, we're going to see the rules about offensive holding change. They're going to make it easier to protect the passer to goose the passing game. And if that happens, McD likely will still want Tremaine in the middle.

So, you can find a 6'5" 250 pound rookie who runs a 4.5 40 and will be your signal caller as a rookie? If you can play an oversized rookie safety in the center of the number 1 defense in the league, why doesn't every team have one of those?

At the end of the game, Rodgers said, "Keep in touch." Interesting fraternity.

What is a hybrid LB/SS? I mean, isn't that what Edmunds is?

This is the core misunderstanding of Edmunds role. His job is not to make the big plays you're looking for. His job is not to blitz, so he doesn't get sacks. His job is not to attack the line of scrimmage, so he doesn't get TFLs. His job is to occupy a lot of territory and make tackles when they come to him. By occupying a lot of space, he makes it easier for all of the pass defenders to do THEIR jobs.

Thanks for talking about this. I have to say that although I've come to understand what it is that they've asked Edmunds to do, it's also become clear to me that there are no tools available to fans, tools like stats, that can help us understand how important his impact on the defense. I think the impact is significant, but I can't really say that, because I don't have the tools to measure that impact. As to your point 1., you now understand what I meant. I was critical of Edmunds for his first three seasons in the same way a lot of fans here are critical of him. He seemed clearly to be making mistakes on the field, attacking the wrong gaps, overrunning plays, etc. After a while, I began to see that he although sometime he was making mistakes, a lot of the time he was doing what he was told to do. In the last couple of seasons I've slowly learned and understood what McDermott has said over and over again, that this a team defense, that everyone has 1/11th to do, etc. The defense works by everyone understanding where he's supposed to be and by everyone making tackles when the opportunity arises. Edmunds job is NOT to attack the line of scrimmage, even though that's what we've all grown accustomed to seeing in great linebackers over the past, in my case, 70 years. His job is to make tackle the ball carriers who make it through the initial line of defense. What's the initial line of defense? Well, it's four to six guys, depending on the play call. One of the safeties attacks the run at the line of scrimmage much more than Edmunds does. And Milano does, too. Edmunds job seems to be not make plays at the point of attack but to clean up the mess when none of the guys at the point of attack make the tackle. His job is to prevent five-yard gains from becoming 15 yard gains. So, he makes a lot tackles five yards beyond the line of scrimmage. I have a sense, but it is only a sense, that he is doing that much better this season, and maybe last, than he did earlier. Earlier, he was chasing the ball carrier down the field; now he's forcing the ball carrier out of bounds - he's moving laterally and not letting him get to the secondary. 2. Yes, I agree, he was lucky on the pass break up. He didn't make a classic play on the ball. But I have absolutely no doubt that when the coaches grade that play he got high grades. His first job on pass defense is to occupy space and by doing so, to discourage the QB from throwing over the middle. I think he's doing that better than ever, because there are fewer passes being completed over the middle this season. Those passes are the ones that resulted in a lot of Edmunds tackles this season. There aren't so many of those this season. His second job is to be cose enough to the receiver to make the tackle if the pass is complete. His third job is to break up the pass. He clearly did the second job, and he did it so well he broke up the pass, by luck you say. I agree, in the most ideal situation, the defender finds the ball and knocks it down. He didn't do that. But he was, legally, so close to the receiver that he made it impossible for the receiver to catch the ball, and that certainly is good enough to get the PBU. And that's my answer to 3. He made the play. Pass defenders get very few pure pass breakups. It's just too hard.

First, yes, I'd say five yards is about right. That's where he's supposed to make tackles. He's literally a line backer. He does not make tackles for no gain. In the past he often had games where a lot of tackles were after a completion. Those tackles were beyond five yards. But Sunday he had very few of those. His tackles were in the run game, and they were exactly the tackles he is supposed to make. As for the pass break up, by all means he gets credit for a pass breakup. He was plastered on the receiver, which is his job. It's interesting how much people complain about him when he's doing his job.

I would simply love to be in the room listening to Beane talk about he's going to manage personnel over the next 12 months. It's hugely complicated, and the decisions are vital to the success of the team.

I've been saying for months that Poyer is gone. Frankly, I'm not even sure about Oliver. I also think the Bills didn't extend Edmunds because they didn't have the cap room. They want to keep a reasonable reserve. Cap will go up next year, Bills will get guys to restructure, and I think Edmunds will be a priority.

Thanks for the post, but I disagree. Increasingly, I'm coming to understand that Edmunds is playing the position you're talking about. In most of the sets he plays in, he isn't asked to be a run stopping lineback like Brown or Pos or Roquan Smith. His role isn't "stop the run and drop back in a zone some of the time." His role is very much different. His role in the run game is to run down the ball carrier if he breaks past the line of scrimmage. Hamlin and Taron Johnson are asked to make more tackles in the backfield than Edmunds is. The Bills don't want Edmunds in the backfield. He's the first line of defense in a the safety net that is designed to stop big plays, and he does that very well. In the Bills defense, tackling the ball five yards downfield IS a win, because it's not 15 yards downfield. It's exactly what the Bills want if the defensive line couldn't hold the line. He's not reasonably strong in coverage; he's great in coverage. Not because he gets pass breakups or INTs; he's great in coverage because he occupies more space in the zone than any other linebacker in the league, because his combination of length, speed, and quickness is unmatched in the league. The result of all of this is that to the uninformed fan, like me, he doesn't look spectacular. He doesn't get sacks, he doesn't get tackles for loss, he doesn't get INTs. He is, however, absolutely perfect for the way McDermott and Frazier want to play defense.