Shaw66

This is the really important question. I've never known how to put it. It's like they had the best defense in the league and underperformed at crunch time against the best offenses. First, I don't know if that's really true. I think we tend to forget the big plays they make and remember the big plays they didn't make, like against KC. NO defense makes all the big plays, and it would be interesting to somehow see the Bills' big-play stop ratio compared to other good defenses. For example, and I think there are a lot of examples like this, at the end of regulation against the Texans in the playoffs, down three, the Bills offense stalled and it looked like the game was over. The defense went three and out, and Josh manufactured a drive to tie it. Big, big stop by the defense. I just don't know if the Bills are any worse or better than other teams in this big stop category. Second, I think the model that McDermott is pursuing is to have a statistically great defense - like last season, AND have a few playmakers who deliver big plays. I think that is a good way to describe Belichick's defense through all his winning seasons. He always seemed to have a team full of defenders who did their job, plus one or two stars, a Richard Seymour or that great corner before Gilmore. That certainly seems to be what Beane went after in Miller and Elam and Daquan Jones and maybe even Jordan Phillips. They're all guys who are something more than do-your-job guys. The Bills were never going to get more big-play production out of their veteran DEs, and certainly Miller and maybe Jones or Phillips can change that. In that regard, I think Beane said in a presser that the Bills got the pressure they wanted last season - their consistent pass-rush pressure was a big contributor in the defense's great stats against the pass. But he said something like this: At the end of the game, we need guys to "get home." If you assume all that is correct, and Beane got the right guys, the question then comes back to Edmunds. Essentially, going after Miller says the Bills don't expect Edmunds, or anyone else on the roster, to emerge as a standout defender (except maybe Groot). And if that's true, then Edmunds is fine for now, while he's under contract, but when it's time for a new deal, does it make sense to pay premium dollars for someone who is not going to be your crunch-time big play guy? My answer to that is simple - and it's the same thing we talk about here over and over: Is Edmunds such a freak, is he just so good at occupying space, that he makes everyone around him better, even though he isn't a big-play guy? If he is, pay him. If not, he's just another player, and if he can get big money someplace else, well, McDermott will figure out how to get along without him. If I had to guess, I'd say he's a freak and they'll keep him. I'm interested that so many people, including me, are of this opinion. Break up what may be the best safety tandem in the league? For me, it's a measure of how much confidence I have in McDermott. My guess is that McD has told Beane not to break the bank on Poyer - get him at a price that still lets Beane keep guys who are really important; otherwise, McD's got guys waiting in the wings to move up and take over.

Great response. I really appreciate the thoughtful discussion. I think you're right in theory, and I agree with you, but the Pegulas are living in the real world, not a theoretical world. Yes, it's great that the Pegulas may be modeling the right behavior and asking everyone who's interested in this stuff to grow up and behave the way we should. I agree with that. But in a retail business, and they for sure are in a retail business, do you succeed by giving people what you think they need or by giving them what they want? Amazon gives me what I want, and I come back. My local cable company gives me what they think I should want, and I'm ready to dump them. That's why I said "if I were their public relations person." The practical reality for someone in their position is that this is a public relations issue. It's all well and good for them to teach us to behave in ways we don't normally behave, but that isn't good public relations. On the other hand, at some point there's a limit, and they are at the limit - there are some things that are just personal and that's it. As I said, I think the solution is to be smarter about the public relations and still say there's a limit. That is, just be a little more more active in saying something, even if that something is "there's nothing new to report, and please continue to respect our privacy." And I have not at all missed the point that you're never going to satisfy all the people. But I'd guess there are 500,000 people who are very interested in what's going on because they care about Kim. I know that as the days turned into a week or more without news, I began coming here more often, because I was worried and was getting anxious. By just being a little active giving news, even if it's "no news," they ease the minds of a lot of those people. That would meet the needs of at least a couple hundred thousand people, without in any way violating their privacy. Yes, some other people will be idiots about it, but a good PR person knows he isn't going to win over everyone. Terry's a big boy. He's used to making hard decisions, and he's used to taking advice. I'm surprised the Bills' PR people aren't suggesting, once every four or five days, a simple statement. Having said that, it truly is a personal decision, so who knows how Terry is feeling right now? Or Kim? One of them may be saying "absolutely no."

I tend to agree with this, but it doesn't give me a lot of comfort. Of course, we haven't heard McBeane say "he needs to make more plays." They don't criticize their players in public. I'd love to hear what McDermott and Frazier tell him privately. I agree he probably has more and different responsibilities than the traditional MLB, but we don't really know that. I often think that we fans misunderstand his job, just as many people misunderstood what Star was supposed to be doing. But none of us really knows. For me, I'm positive about Edmunds because (1) the most important positions are the positions closest to the ball, (2) the Bills keep playing him in an important position, and (3) it's hard to have the best defense in the league with an underperformer at an important position. Still, I have no idea what they are going to do about keeping him. I agree he's almost certainly more important than Poyer, and if I could pay only one, I'd pay Tremaine.

I knew I'd get this response, and I don't disagree that it SHOULD be the way you say. It SHOULD be. But the world isn't the way it SHOULD be, the world is the way the world is, and in this world it's simply unreasonable to expect that hundreds of thousands of people are going to behave the way they should. What I said is that given the way the world actually is, given that they are public figures in a modern, media-driven world, they would be better advised to give more frequent updates, even if those updates are only one line and ask again for privacy. By doing that, by doing a simple little thing, they give some comfort to thousands of people. Bottom line for me is pretty much what I expect you'd say. It's up to them to do what feels right to them, and it's up to me to manage my own emotions. All I'm saying is that there are a lot of people who don't manage their emotions that well, and hearing something every few days or even a week is enough to help them. Not everyone - there always will be people clamoring for more, but for a lot people, they just need occasional assurance that things are not off the rails.

Well, just for conversation's sake, I'll disagree. Like pretty much all of us, I'm tremendously worried for Kim. For Bills fans, the Bills are family, and Kim's the momma. I'm not saying that's right or wrong or whatever, but that's the way it is. We care about her like she's our family. It's irrational, I know, but we do. Beyond that, she's a public figure. She operates in a world where her actions and behaviors are reported and publicly known. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, either, but that's the way it is. Public figures simply cannot have the same expectations of privacy that everyone else has, and they have to work very hard to keep their private lives from becoming public. Lots of people want to be famous, and one of the common complaints of people who have become famous is the loss of privacy. In that environment, I thought it was odd that the family would put out an announcement that Kim was being treated, ask for privacy, and then say nothing for however long it was. Obviously, the family can choose to do whatever it wants - either be public about the fact that she's ill and seek to keep that information confidential. But once they've decided they're going to make it public, it doesn't work very well then to say nothing. That doesn't mean that once they've gone public they have to give hourly or daily updates, but I think it does mean that once they've gone public without giving details, they at least have to say something every few days, even if what they say continues to give no details. When I say "they have to say," I don't mean there's any legal requirement; I just mean that for public figures, it's an unfair thing to do to the hundreds of thousands of people who have been made anxious and concerned by the first announcement. Look at Bruce Willis. In March, his family announced that he had aphasia and is retired. In that situation, they gave enough information for most reasonable people to understand that he has a serious problem, we know what it is, and we can read about it and make our own conclusions about his future. We understand that it's time to back off and leave the guy alone. In Kim's case, they haven't done any of that yet, which leaves the public hanging and worrying, and as evidenced by this thread, speculating. That doesn't mean that the Pegulas have to give details; it just means that if they're not going to give details, they need to say something every few days or week to help us deal with our anxiety. I'm just saying I think they waited too long to make the second announcement. Particularly because Kim feels like family. Imagine that your father called and said your mother was in the ICU but she wants you to respect her privacy, so he's not giving you any more information. Imagine he doesn't tell you any more for two weeks. Sure, I get that Kim's NOT my mother, but that doesn't change the fact she feels like my mother, or my wife, or my daughter (ah, the fantasies!). Whether she likes it or not, her position as a public figure has created those feelings. It would be different of course, if she was a traditional 19th century wife, outside the public eye - nobody ever paid a lot of attention to Mrs. Wilson all those years, because it was clear that Ralph was the owner and she was just his wife. But Kim took on a much different role, and once she does that, she occupies space in the minds of Bills fans that causes us to become upset when they announce she's been hospitalized. I'm thrilled she's improving, and so long as I know that, I don't need to know the details. However, if I were their public relations guy, I would tell them not to wait so long to make another statement.

Great. We need that woman.

Thank you. Good to hear from someone who would know. Thank you.

Well, I'm not going to argue with the guy in the video, but all he said is that these three guys haven't shown me enough in the past. If the past is all we have to go by, I agree, all three would be gone. But history has nothing to do with whether they make the team this season. The question is how much better did each of the three get between the end of last season and the end of this August. Purely statistically, odds are that at least one makes it.

RIP, Eddie. You were one of the family. Younger posters may not remember Ed Abramoski. He was a trainer in the dark ages, compared to the technical expertise that exists today. But when Eddie gave his opinion, you could bank on it.

I think he writes them with an editor. Still, there's something personal and unique about each of his pieces. I read JaMarcus Russell's, which is interesting, and the writing is much different.

Dawkins' personality really comes out when he writes. It's personal for him. This piece is no exception. He tells us what it feels like to be Black when thinks like this happen.

That would be my prediction. Shakir, because everything they've said about him makes it seem they won't want to risk losing him by a move to the practice squad. McKenzie, because every year I predict he'll get cut, and every year I'm wrong. McDermott likes him, he useful in a lot of roles. Kumerow, because of the contract move they just made with him. Makes me think he's approaching lock-status because of his special teams play. Austin because as someone just said, there's a reason the Bills signed him. I think that reason is that they value his work ethic and attitude, and they think by defining Austin's role properly, they can better play out of him than what the league has seen so far. They think they can get him to play the best football of his life. Shakir, McKenzie, Austin, and Stevenson are in a traffic jam. From my point of view, I want someone to emerge is a solid return man, someone you can put back there and not have to worry about ball security. McDermott didn't want to trust Stevenson, a rookie, returning kicks last season, and I doubt he'll want to trust Shakir this season. McKenzie and Stevenson make me nervous, and that's where I expect Austin has an edge. He has a lot experience, and if he may offer the ball security the others don't. That would make him a lock. (I think the guy you want to return punts is someone (1) who will not lose the ball, and (2) who has the potential to make tacklers miss. They all have (2) - ball security is paramount). Unless he shows a lot more than he has, I don't see Stevenson being able to take a spot from any of the others.

Actually, that's how I think of it. There's a big drop in talent fro. The top 10 to the bottom 10 in the first round. Much bigger than between 6 and 7.

You reach a conclusion like this when you let your eyes and your emotions make the judgments. The reality is that every team gives up good chunk plays every game. The idea that you can hold teams under 10 yards every play is simply a fantasy. In the modern NFL, with the rules as they are, there are going to be multiple times, a dozen or more, when the offense is just going to be in the right play against the defense called, and there's nothing to be done about it. The Bills had the best yardage defense in the league. It doesn't make sense to expect the defense now to shut down the chunk plays they gave up last season. I mean, it would be nice to have the greatest defense of all time, but it's not reasonable to expect it.

Agreed. But it's been years since we have seen teams with established QBs in real cap trouble. In part, if you dont have to keep spending to try a new QB, you can manage your cap at the other positions.

Yes, that is exactly how it went down. To be fair, however, they never hid the ball about the fact that they had a certain kind of player in mind for their team and that some of the guys they inherited weren't that kind. It wasn't a secret. So, it was clear that there were going to be changes. But on this forum the debate was always going on about whether a major roster adjustment was necessary. Plenty of us were saying it would only take a few players, and a QB. Why tear it down? Point is, at the time, the issue wasn't a secret. So, I always took "it was the only choice" to mean "it was the only choice given how we decided to restructure the roster." In a more philosophical look at it, McDermott's process is to have everyone on the team have a certain kind of focus and determination. When everyone sees that everyone else in the locker room is committed in that way, they all work better together. Which means that McDermott can't make his process work until he clears out the guys who don't have that commitment. Those guys poison the attitude in the clubhouse, and that attitude is what McDermott is building his success on. In that sense, they "had no other choice" was true. Managing your way to a new roster over three years means you're keeping some guys who don't fit, and you can't have success with them (at least that's what McD would tell us). In other words, to do what they needed to do, there actually was no other choice. Not that I care all that much. Your fundamental point, that they never talked about WHY they had no choice - the wrong guys in the locker room. They weren't going to throw them under the bus, but they were going to get rid of them, quick. So, they just said "we didn't have a choice" and left it at that.

This may be generally true, but not in every case. If you have the right quarterback, you can manage the cap without ever really having to pay the piper. That's exactly what the Patriots did. And the Steelers weren't bad at it with Ben, although they didn't get the Lombardis the Patriots did. If they're well managed, teams with star quarterbacks don't have cap problems, and it can go on for a decade or even two.

Thanks for starting this thread. It's interesting. I think it was more than a narrative. As people have said here, the best teams manage the cap by relying on cap inflation - they can pay with cheaper cap dollars in the future. But that rule doesn't apply when you have a collection of players with big contracts whom you no longer want. It doesn't apply, because in cap terms you can't use time to your advantage - you have to pay with present cap dollars. So, the GM has two choices: Either you manage to a soft landing, so to speak, over three or four years, or you take the hit more or less all at once. Neither is ideal for team building. Beane told us at the time they decided to take the hit and get past it as fast as they could. Essentially, they made a decision about how they wanted to go about the rebuild, which was build from the ground up. Once that decision was made, they didn't have a choice.

Price, at his very best, yes. Over his career, I'll take my chances with Gabriel Davis and use my pick elsewhere. Moulds, is a very different question. Pair Diggs and Moulds? That is a uniquely difficult duo. One's a big-play threat who's also a possession receiver, and the other is an incredible possession receiver who also happens to be a deep threat. That truly would be unfair to the defense.

Well, if we're going to get into a Peters discussion, I'll start by saying that we can't compare sack stats over these periods. The Passing game has changed so much, the sack numbers don't compare. I mean, even if you think Peters was inconsistent, the notion that Dawkins compares in any way is pretty tough to swallow. Dawkins is a good to very good system guy; Peters, by the time he left Buffalo, was a dominant left tackle. The Peters/Owens comparison is completely apt. They both WERE headaches, but they both were such superior players at their positions that teams were happy to deal with the headaches, at least for a while. However, I think McD would take on the headaches under only certain circumstances, only when the guy fit just right. Exactly how Belichick took Randy Moss. Just the right fit for the right time, let's get him in here and use that talent. Now, the comparison breaks down, though, because Peters was less of a headache. After his escape from Buffalo, he played his whole career for one team - Philadelphia only gave up on him because they don't think he can hold up physically, not because he was a problem. But he doesn't make my top 3. My three were Fred Jackson, Reuben Brown, and Patrick Williams. I think what I'm saying is I value the inspirational-warrior attitude that those guys had. I don't think that Peters was that kind of player. Peters was in many ways just plain physically dominant - he was bigger and quicker than almost anyone else trying to play that position, and he had the brains to execute at a really high level. I think the three I picked all showed a different kind of heart over their careers, and I value that heart.

fair enough. i know he did it with the Eagles, but I can't say for sure about the Bills.

It IS a fact that as a player he left multiple games with injuries and returned later. I saw it. It was, as I said, predictable. He did it a lot. I don't remember if he did it with the Bills, but I know he did it with the Eagles. I saw it. That's the basis of my opinion that he is not one of the top 3 guys that I would add to the team.

Man, you guys are really worked up. I just have opinion about the guy, and it's different from your opinion.

Right. I think we fail to understand fully the importance of the team concept. A truly integrated team approach, with every guy doing his job, yields better results than individual performances, even when you have a lot of really good individuals. The team approach makes your weakest guys better, so there are no weaknesses to attack.

I think he'll have more snaps than every DE, except maybe Rousseau. I think it will be under 60%. McDermott uses the rotation for multiple reasons, and it works well for him. I expect Miller will be a normal rotation for three quarters. In the fourth quarter, if they need him, he'll be on the field a lot. If they don't need him, he will be rested. The guy is older than most guys on the dline, and they want him in good shape for the playoffs.