Shaw66

No problem. I'd like some more depth there, but it will come from free agency or guys they've already signed. It would be nice to have a stud on the other side, but few teams do. What the Bills have is serviceable.

I don't know. My mental image is that Milano makes a couple of big plays a game, and Edmunds doesn't. But you're right, playing where he plays he doesn't have nearly the opportunity to pile up stats. I think what happened with Milano was that the COVID cap lowered his potential payday and Beane realized he could keep Milano for less than he had anticipated. Milano probably didn't want to leave unless it was for a lot more money, and the lot more money wasn't there.

Just for hahas, I looked at Keuchly vs. Edmunds stats. First three years, Keuchly blows him away, because for the first three years were by far Keuchly's best. Then his stats fall off, mostly because of injuries, I think. The surprising thing is that Edmunds is as far off as I would have thought. All numbers are per game played; Solo - 4.8 to 5.8, Keuchly Assists - 2.9 to 3.4, Keuchly. So, on total tackles, has a 1.5 edge. QB Hits - .30 to .26, Edmunds. TFL - .41 to .64, big edge Keuchly. Sacks - .12 to .10, Edmunds Passed defended - .52 to .56, Keuchly. Forced fumbles - .04 to .06, Keuchly. Keuchly is a great tackler, Edmunds isn't. That's clear to the eye and in the stats. Otherwise, not a ton argue about.

That's interesting. I would have guessed that even despite having missed more time, Milano would have a bigger edge on plays made.

Like I said, there's going to be a lot of competition. You don't see a whole lot of rookies starting on offensive lines, especially guys drafted outside the first couple of rounds, but Brown seems to be an unusual guy so, who knows.

I think they value him because he is the second best, if not best, center on the team. I have thought for months that Morse's job may be at risk. Big contract, I know, McDermott is going to play the best line. Mostly what's going on is that there is going to be serious competition all across the line. Dawkins is probably the only guy who's job is secure.

I'd like to be able to compare film, side-by-side, of Edmunds and Milano. Especially on the blitzes and running plays. Milano seems to do more of what we'd like to see Edmunds do: recognize, attack, make the tackle.

I like your two posts. I think they state the case fairly. As I've said elsewhere, I'm not sure that he's relatively weak in play recognition and instincts. His instincts aren't great, I'll grant you, but I don't think that's what happened. I think Edmunds has a bigger defensive assignment, a larger area to cover, than typical middle linebackers. I think the Bills do it by design - it's part of denying explosive plays. Protect the sideline and the deep zones, funnel everything to the middle and challenge our speedy, long-armed MLB to stop it all. I think what's happened is that, as always happens, offenses have figured out how to attack the least well-defended space and get relatively easy completions, not because Edmunds has bad instincts or doesn't recognize plays, but because he can't possibly cover all that he's asked to cover if the offense wants to attack there. Mahomes clearly was running options against Edmunds' pass defense. Frazier will adjust, disguise more, give Edmunds more help - I think one thing they like about Rousseau is that he seems to have the ability drop into coverage (he said as much in one of his interviews), and I think we'll see him sometimes back their plugging gaps in the short zones. And I don't mean more help for Edmunds because he is underskilled; it's more help because he's asked to do more than the typical MLB. Frankly, what I want to see out of Edmunds is more consistent, authoritative tackling. Hit the guy and take him down; don't just grab him.

I don't know why you keep arguing. We all get it: Edmunds doesn't do enough of the things that you think he should do. They're things I think he should do, too. All I've said is that I suspect he does things that you and I don't see that McDermott values more than the things you do. I'm not in One Bills Drive. I don't know. But I think if we could ask McDermott, he would tell us that Edmunds does things that make the defense successful, things that don't show up in stats that you and I look at. It's not a point you can argue against without looking foolish. I've put forward a theory that you can't disprove. It's also a theory I can't prove, because McDermott isn't having that conversation with us.

Only one of the three seasons has his passer rating been poor. And I don't think the fact that they manipulate Edmunds in coverage is due to his lack of instincts. I think it's due to the amount of space the Bills ask him to cover. It's clear in the championship game that Mahomes had two options over the middle, read Edmunds, then went the other way. That's not bad instincts. Edmunds wasn't choosing the wrong guy to cover. Edmunds had two guys to cover, which was impossible. When he chose one, Mahomes threw away from him. That's consistent with what I said in my last post - I think the Bills intentionally give Edmunds a large territory to cover, which has the effect of helping the other back six guys shut down their zones. In a sense, I think the Bills invite teams to throw over the middle. That's not bad instincts.

I get all that, and I see it too. Still, I wonder if we know we're talking about. I'll give you a completely different stat. I'll preface by saying that we thing we know about McDermott is that his defensive style is not to give up the big play. That means he's willing to give the offense something else in order to be sure to shut down the big play. The best place to give them something is over the middle, because that's where you have the most tacklers, and it's the best place to give the offense some yardage without giving them big yardage. So, okay, Edmunds had a passer rating of 114 last season. And I suspect it wasn't much different in the two previous years. How was the Bills pass defense? In 2020, the Bills' defensive passer rating was 86.9, 5th best in the league. The two seasons before that, Edmunds' first two seasons in the league, the team defensive passer ratings were third best in the league. As I've suggested to you before, I think (I don't know but I think) that Edmunds is giving McDermott most of what McDermott wants. Edmunds allows the back seven shell to over-cover the sideline and deep routes. Edmunds (and Milano) cover a large amount of the short middle, where McDermott will give up completions at a relatively high rate in order to shut down the explosive plays. (And by the way, Edmunds' passer rating his first two seasons was 93 and then 76, so I wouldn't be too quick to condemn him for his 114. I really think that we don't understand Edmunds' value the way McDermott does. Still, I share your concerns - why is he such a lousy blitzer, getting pressure not very often and more or less never getting sacks? Why can't he tackle better? Why is he always a split second late to intercept?

Amazing highlight play, but lost in the spectacle was the fact that Norman's contact drove Henry out of bounds.

Certainly true. Derrick Henry runs more like Jim Brown than anyone I've ever seen. In the 60s, if you had Jim Brown, you were a contender every year. Now, the perennial contenders are Green Bay, Tampa Bay, Kansas City, and, yes, Buffalo, and it isn't because of the running backs. Meanwhile, incredible as Henry is, Tennessee is only going so far as Tannehill can take them.

This is an interesting observation. I think there's some truth in. And drafting at 30, you aren't going to get a lot of top flight stars. But the question for Bills fans is "do you want top flight talent or you want to win?" QB is the only position where top flight talent correlates with winning. Tampa had a lot of talent on the field last year, but Brady was probably the only guy on the team who was a star like Allen and Diggs. One way you can tell the Bills have a lot of talent is that they didn't have many opportunities to draft someone who would be clearly better than the starter the Bills have at any particular position. McBeane clearly like their talent, because they didn't go chasing talent in the free agent markets and they drafted high ceiling guys who won't necessarily be immediate contributors. That's the process when you want to continuously improve your talent. So, yeah, the Bills didn't take someone who makes the fans dream of instant impact, like a Sammy Watkins did and a CJ Spiller did, and they didn't sign someone who got the juices flowing like the Mario Williams signing did, but we saw how those approaches worked and we've seen how McBeane's approach works. There are no parades around downtown this morning, but I'm fine with that. This looks like the way to have a parade in February.

I can't explain it to you, because I don't understand it, either, but McDermott seems to think you're wrong about this. And I don't mean it as a criticism of what you're saying, because I've always thought what you're saying is the correct approach.

Got it. Thanks. So, that means that what Kiper does is fundamentally different from what Beane does. Kiper might, I suppose, give players a first or second or third round grade, a grade that relates to what he thinks the players' actual value is, but for publication purposes, he tries to predict which 32 players will go in the first round. That is, in a sense, he has to give 32 guys a first round grade, and 32 more a second round grade, whether or not he thinks their worth it. And in making those predictions, in a perfect world, he would know what the actual process is that each of 32 teams use. That process, of course, is seriously protected. And to demonstrate what's really silly about the amateur draft predictions, ESPN has two guys, Kiper and McShay, making these predictions, and they can't possibly have the same level of staff support, either individually or shared, that each GM has. So the depth of knowledge about individual players isn't possible for those guys. And the GMs aren't sharing what they know. All of which means that I'd rather read about your draft board, because you at least have a measure of understanding of what McBeane are trying to do and can shape your board in some ways to try to predict what the Bills will do. But don't get a fat head - we all know you don't what you're talking about, either!!! 😉

I'm dense. What are the vertical and horizontal stacks? Vertical stacks are by position? Horizontal by draft round grade?

I don't know if it's quite the certainty that you say, but I agree in general. I says something about how McDermott wants to play defense in the coming years. He thinks that he can have a winning defense without a traditional power linebacker in the middle. Edmunds is far from the prototypical middle linebacker of the distant or even the recent past. He isn't Dick Butkus or Ray Lewis. That seems to be okay with McDermott.

I hadn't read about that call, but what you say is absolutely right. In McD's early days here, people on the board had the age-old argument about taking character or taking talent. It was clear that McD was a character-first guy, with a very clear understanding of what character meant - work ethic, team orientation, intense competitor and intense desire to improve. So, yeah, Aaron Hernandez would not have been on the Bills' board - people knew who he was by the time he came out of college. Obviously, there's no formula, but I'd have to guess that they had Rousseau around 20-22. If they had him in the top 15, they would have traded up for him, just like they traded up for Edmunds.

Well, I think you understand, but I think you overstate it in a way. I think McDermott has veto power, yes, but he also understands and seriously believes that this must be a team activity, and he seriously believes in delegation. That means that he has to let Beane do his thing and NOT veto his moves; McDermott has to have the discipline, and seems to have the discipline, to let Beane run with what he thinks is best. The day McDermott vetoes a first round pick will be when the strength of the relationship will be tested.

I'll go look at the article, but I find that really amazing. That means that the Bills, and presumably other teams, are so refined in their processes that they grade 100-150 guys and ignore another 100-150, because there are going to be 250 drafted. That means they really understand who these players are and how the draft will fall - not knowing who's taking whom, but knowing how many guys they have to know about. That's a really finely honed process. Thanks.

Someone asked Beane how this draft was different from drafts a couple of years ago. He said the main difference is that he and his staff now have a really solid understanding of what McDermott and the coaches want and need. They know what kinds of players fit best into what the coaches are trying to build. There's such consistency, apparently, in how McDermott runs his side of the house that Beane's side can focus better on players that are what the coaches want. That's why, as you say, McDermott can trust him implicitly - because Beane view his job as giving McDermott what he needs, even to the extent that Beane may know better than McDermott what he needs. If that's the kind of trust they have, and it seems they do, then maintaining that trust could lead to a long and happy marriage. I've only looked at highlight videos, but I'll say that my first reaction to Rousseau was that he's an odd looking player. Unique. Not overpoweringly odd, like Clowney looked in college, just different. A guy who gets results in what looks like an unconventional way. Basham looks solid, but the two offensive tackles also look odd. How did the Bills get focused on two trees like that? Because they're athletes with the right competitiveness and work ethic, I know, but still, why not more conventionally sized guys? The answer is, I think, that Beane and McDermott continue to refine what they want, McDermott telling Beane the kind of characteristics he's looking for, Beane seeing how that could work and going after guys who fit the mold. And I think that kind of communication and understanding is helpful both in the early rounds (where the Bills might leave us scratching our heads with two DEs) and in the later rounds, where Beane can see that a physically unimpressive still may be the guy McDermott needs, a guy like Hamlin. I think it's fascinating to watch.

You know more about this than I, but I'd guess the Bills have more guys graded than that. Well, probably not graded, probably clustered. By that I mean they probably have a list of guys they have a sixth round grade on, a list of guys they have a seventh round grade on, without having ranked them individually within their cluster. Seven rounds, maybe 34 a round (with comp picks), is 230 to 250 guys being drafted; throw out maybe 50 the Bills know they aren't interested in (the top QBs and some bad apples) and it means the Bills need to know about 300 players. And they also need to have a good idea about another 100 from whom they're going to get undrafted free agents. So they must have evaluated and had a very clear take on 400 or 500 guys, even though they have ranked only 150. I was very interested in Beane's comment about the trade down - one fifth for two sixths. He said that the Bills are now at a disadvantage in the mad scramble for undrafted free agents, because agents tell their guys that they have less of a chance to make the Bills than to make other needs whose rosters aren't so strong. It's tougher for the Bills to sign the best undrafted free agents. The trade down was done to offset that disadvantage, to get one more quality athlete to compete in training camp and probably go to the practice squad, because it will be harder to get guys like that on Sunday after the draft. Maybe the Bills didn't have an actual number grade on those guys they took in the 6th and 7th, but you can be sure they were certain (in their minds) that they were 6th and 7th round ready.

Someplace in this thread or elsewhere I was in a little discussion about the possibility that Beane might leave one day. Some people seemed to think it was more or less impossible that he would leave unless McDermott was gone, too. I think what you say is a better explanation for why Beane might leave than I gave. I'm not exactly sure where the power is today. Clearly when Beane was hired it was in McDermott - the Pegs relied primarily on him to hire Beane. And McDermott is the high priest of the growth mindset, so far as I can tell, not Beane, and I think the Pegs are sold on that. I think in the war room on draft day, Beane has the final say. If he says it's Basham, it's Basham. But I think, and it sounds like you agree, if McDermott goes to the Pegulas and complains to them that he told Beane that he really, really didn't want another DE, that team would be stronger if the Bills went in a different direction in the second round, well, Beane might be in trouble. Maybe they'd smooth it over, but if it happened once more, or twice more, if they were regularly knocking heads on personnel decisions, I think the Pegulas would tell them that McDermott has a veto on the draft selections. If that happened, I'd think Beane would move on. If you believe that article from a couple of months ago, the Pegulas wanted Mahomes and Whaley and/or some of his staff wanted Mahomes. McDermott said no, for whatever reasons. It's hard to imagine that McDermott, having that veto power months after he arrived, willingly would give it up. It is another way that I think McDermott is similar to Belichick.

Please don't take the following comments as arguing. I'm not arguing about it - just talking and making some observations. First, I agree, it's fun and interesting to look at all kinds of rankings. They're great when they conclude something like Feliciano is the second best pass protecting guard in the league, and they're terrible when they say the Bills had the second worst tackling linebackers in the league, or whatever. Second, I've always distrusted the talking-head outsiders when they rank anything. The weekly power ratings are really stupid, in my opinion. (I still look at them.) And that goes for especially amateurs who make themselves into professionals, from Mel Kiper on down. Self-appointed experts. My distrust was confirmed a few years ago when Kyle Williams was being interviewed and he was told something like he had a 68% efficiency rating on running plays (I just made that up). Williams asked where that number came from and was told it came PFF or someplace, and he went off. First, he wasn't even aware of such ratings, which means that his team doesn't rely on that data at all - they generate their own data. Second, he asked how an outsider possibly could evaluate his efficiency on any play when he doesn't know what his assignment was, how that assignment might have been adjusted in the huddle, what the defense did that might have made executing more difficult than anticipated, etc. He literally laughed it off. So, if the pros completely ignore that kind of analysis, why should we pay attention to it? Still, it's fun. Third, the teams really, really don't care where their draft ranks among other teams. All they care about is their own objectives and how well they did against those objectives. You can tell that Beane just sloughs off questions that suggestion his team didn't get better as much as the Chiefs or the Browns. He may or may not believe that, but he just doesn't care. All that matters to him is making his team as good as he can make it. The Jets made themselves a whole lot better than the Bills did, because they didn't have a quarterback and now they do. I know, this list actually takes that into account in some way, but so what? Now, it's interesting that this approaches averages a lot of publicly available big boards. The philosophy is consistent with something I read recently. Apparently, if you fill a 5 gallon glass jug with gumballs and ask people to guess how many gumballs there are, you get guesses all over the place, some of which are wrong, sometimes by factors of 2, 3, 4. But if you have 10,000 people guess and you average all their guesses, the average consistently comes out close to the actual number of gumballs. So, it's possible that that phenomenon is at work here, and even though I think all these amateurs are idiots, maybe the average of all the idiots is actually meaningful. Now, if you gave me the average of the big boards of the 32 teams, I'd think you'd have a pretty good starting point. It actually would be kind of cool if the teams all agreed to show their big boards to some trusted third person, like some bigtime accounting firm. Strictly confidentially, so no one would ever see and be able to identify lists to teams, and let the firm do some number crunching and release the results. That would be interesting. For example: Take Rousseau. It's possible he was #30 on the Bills' board and 29 teams took the guys the Bills had at 1-29. That's extremely unlikely. It's much more likely that he was #20 or #25 and some other teams took guys who were over #30. I don't know exactly how the boards are put together, but obviously the Bills weren't taking a QB with their first pick, so there's five guys who totally objectively may have been a better value than Rousseau but whom the Bills weren't going to take. If you could analyze those kinds of situations for all of the teams and do some averaging, you could figure out, at least based on the collective judgment of 32 GMs, which team got the best talent in the draft. I just don't have a lot of confidence in the collective judgment of 70 Mel Kipers - unless the gumball example is actually true