Shaw66

Well, I'm a regular defender of Edmunds here, but I'm not going to defend him in the run game. I think what you say is incorrect in a sense. If you let the o linemen get to the second level, EVERY run defense is toast. EVERY middle linebacker becomes unproductive in the run game when the o linemen get to him. The problem with Edmunds is that he isn't very effective when the d line protects him. He just doesn't fill holes effectively. Either he's late, takes angles that don't work (although he's improved there), and he doesn't hit the ball carrier with authority. I guess I agree, however, that McDermott seems to think he can occupy the o linemen in the run game with the athletic DTs. I mentioned, for example, that I think McDermott is counting on the ability of these guys to pursue, down the line and behind the line. I think he's also planning on being creative on stunts and other games he can play with athletic linemen, including dropping one or two into short zones and blitzing linebackers. We're both saying that McD apparently is planning on playing something of a non-traditional game on the D line. Also, someone gave Philips' history, and suggested that we are ignoring Philips. I think he may be right. I think of Philips like I think of Ford - yes, he has some potential, but I'm not going to count on him until he contributes consistently, and I haven't seen that. However, it's correct that Philips needed last year to recover, and this year he's going to be healthy and have the knowledge of a third-year guy. It's quite possible that McDermott knows a lot more about how much real progress Philips has made than we do, and that could be a plausible explanation as to why the Bills haven't been actively pursuing a DT.

Well, yeah, that's the way you and I have always understood the basics of defense against the run. But I watched the Bills playing last season without a combination of guys who could offer that kind of protection to Edmunds, and I wondered at times whether McDermott has a different philosophy altogether. And then I listen to Beane telling us that both Rousseau and Basham can play tackle, and I wonder again. I wonder whether McDermott's view is that, first and foremost, he's going to play team defense that stops the big play. That would mind that he doesn't mind giving up modest yards some of the time, if the trade-off is that he can shut down everything deep. We know his philosophy is to get pass rush consistently out of his front four, and he sacrifices one quarter of his pass rush when he's playing true one-tech (unless he has essentially a Hall of Fame player at the position. I wonder whether he isn't thinking that on a lot of downs he'd rather have have four guys, all of whom are regular threats to penetrate, guys who not only can get after the passer but also can come down the line of scrimmage to take down backs going the other way. The videos show Basham and Rousseau making plays like that. I don't know any of this for sure. It's all pure speculation, but I find it curious, as do many posters here, that Beane has done nothing significant to get anyone into camp beyond Star and Harry. It's particularly curious given that Star is a question mark until he shows up and shows that he isn't and that Harry, although he had his moments last season, hasn't shown he's an answer. It all makes me think that McDermott and Frazier are going in a different direction than traditional football theory would suggest. That is, it may be that McDermott thinks that he knows some things that we don't. I agree with that. First downs and obvious run situations. A situational player. But that still suggests that McDermott and Frazier are willing to sacrifice the bulk that a traditional one-tech guy would have, to take the risk that on second and third down teams will attack the relatively small and weak defensive front, and to gamble that quickness and scheming can make up for the fact that they don't have personnel on the field that can dominate the center of the line physically.

It does look that way. I'm no DT expert, but seems like Star is the only true one-tech. Even Philips seems more like a hybrid. It says McD isn't afraid to play with four guys who are quick and smart, even if they're undersized for the traditional role of a one tech. We'll see as the summer goes on.

No argument - gotcha. I just like talking about this stuff. I think what I said remains true - that McBeane don't feel that corner is an area of need. Remember that Beane has said free agency is to fill holes, the draft is to acquire talent. He drafts, especially in the early rounds, for BPA, not need. Where have they been active in free agency? As I said, OL, DL and receiver. Beane's strategy obviously is to sign a lot of guys in areas of need and let them compete to make the squad and for playing time. He does that by acquiring journeymen, not stars. Beasley was a high-end journeyman, Brown is a mid-level journeyman - both were improvements over what the Bills had, but we were dreaming if we thought the Bills were going to get any more of them in 2019 than they did. Sanders is a high-end journeyman at this point in his career. Diggs was a draft choice - BPA. OL and DL, journeymen, over and over again. He did it this year with kick returner - he had a need and he went after a late round pick and a free agent to fight it out with McKenzie. That's how Beane meets the roster needs of the team - bring in marginal guys and let them compete. It's very clear. In the draft, Beane goes after talent in the front end of the draft, pure talent. In the back end, he goes after talent at positions of need. The fact that he grabbed two offensive linemen in the lower rounds and only one corner, says it again: McBeane don't think they have a problem at corner. We, you, me, plenty of others may think they do have a problem, but they don't. Two years ago, Beane went after Vontae Davis. That suggested to me that he thought he had a need at corner. Last year it was Norman, whom I considered to be a lower-probability starter than Davis. That suggested to me that Beane felt the need was less urgent. This year he chased no one in free agency, and picked one late-round corner in the draft. That all says to me McBeane don't see corner as a position of significant need.

Well, at least if you believe the announcers, defenders are influenced all the time by the QB's eyes. But I didn't see Mahomes moving Edmunds into empty space. I saw Edmunds with two guys in his zone moving in different directions. Thanks for this comment, and the one about Levi. Maybe we'll see Jackson platooning there this season. Still, the Bills aren't showing any great urgency in getting a better corner onto the roster. Compare the aggressiveness with which Beane pursued wideouts, offensive linemen, and defensive lineman in the past two seasons with what he's done about corner backs. That says to me that they don't see it as a position of need.

Thanks. We've all gotten so into statistics, and there's all this hype about analytics, and I'm sure the right stats and the right analytics are valuable tools within organizations. We, and I include myself, see some stat that some geek somewhere cooked up, and we tend to ascribe a lot more meaning to the stat than it deserves. In fact, sometimes there's no meaning to it all. And while I'm on the subject, what really bugs me is when the announcers tell us that if Smith throws at least two touchdown passes in today's game, he will become the first QB in the history of the league to have gotten at least X completions, Y yards, and Z touchdowns before reaching age 24. They say as though it's a record some keeps, like you can look up the ages of all players at the time they hit X, Y, Z. That's not a record. And it's also more or less meaningless, because although Smith did that, Jones was the QB in history to A rushing touchdowns, B wins, with a passer rating C before age 25. I mean, who cares? They just go to all the stat lists and come up with some combination of stats that make the guy look good. I think the emphasis on stats leads us to misperceive what actually drives success in the league. There's a lot of truth when someone ways the only stats that matter are Ws and points. Everything else is fun to talk about, but a lot of it doesn't correlate with success.

Interesting comment. I've often said that a related subject - play calling - is much less important than fans make of it. I mean, of course there's occasionally a really stupid call, just like there's occasionally a really stupid decision to go for it or not. But most of the time, the decision is reasonably justifiable - there may be arguments either way, but it one decision or the other isn't the obvious choice. It's only in retrospect that a commentator says it was a great play call (because it worked) or a fan says it was a stupid call by his coach (because it didn't). The fact is that plays work or don't work for all kinds of reasons in all kinds of situations, and the measurement of whether play calling is effective or ineffective is extremely difficult, if not impossible. So too, "going for it." Whether to go for it is one decision of hundreds, maybe thousands, that coaches make during a game. Whether going for it works is dependent on all kinds of factors, not simply whether it was a good decision or not. So, it isn't surprising that someone's measure of aggressiveness in deciding whether to go for it does not correlate with winning. Winning is the culmination of weeks and months of preparation, game plan design and implementation, coaching, execution, weather, bad calls, all sorts of things. Attempts at statistical analysis of someone's decision making in this respect are pretty meaningless. Now, that's not to say that analytics doesn't have a role. It IS knowable whether a coach going for it is consistent with what analytics suggest. That comparison may be meaningful, but even that has its flaws. After all, Billy Beane's analytics changed over time, as do the analytics of all coaches. The game evolves, and what worked two seasons ago doesn't work now.

I agree with this, but I also think the fans think there's more of a need at #2 corner than McBeane think. First, the opponents last season weren't attacking Wallace like he was a liability. Teams couldn't go after him repeatedly and have success. They threw to his side more than White's side, I suppose, but that's because of how good White is, not because Wallace is a liability. Second, I think Wallace plays the total position the way McDermott wants, including run support and the complex zone and zone/man schemes McDermott prefers. I don't think it's easy to find someone who plays the total position a lot better, except for players who are generally too pricey - free agents or top-of-the-draft rookies. As long as White is on the other side, I think the Bills will be satisfied with a solid, if not spectacular performer. If a stud corner falls to them in the first round of the draft, the Bills will take him with great pleasure, but I don't think the Bills think they have a need or a hole there.

Thanks for the compliment, I don't think I'm all that knowledgeable. For example, it may be the case that McDermott would tell us, if he were speaking frankly, that Edmunds screwed up a lot in pass coverage last season. Mostly what I do is try to infer things from what McBeane do and say. I watch them, ask myself why they'd be doing or not doing things (like exercising the option on Edmunds, or not chasing a running back other than Breida), and try to draw conclusions. Following that approach, I conclude that they are satisfied with the job Edmunds is doing, because (1) the Bills exercised the option and (2) the Bills seem to be doing absolutely nothing to create serious competition for the job. I combine that with plays from the championship game where Mahomes clearly was reading Edmunds, and I conclude that the problem people think they see is in the scheme, not the player. Maybe I'm wrong.

It's strictly wait and see. It's very simple. McDermott is all about competition, and the best 53, from his point of view, will make it. I've written about the several reasons, from my point of view, why he seems unlikely to make it. On the other "extreme" is the fact that guy has been an extremely successful ball carrier in a very similar sport, breaking tackles, changing direction, running away from tacklers. NFL teams can always use guys with those skills. What none of us knows is how well he has learned all the little things he needs to know, the little things plenty of us have been talking about here. In other words, it may be fun to talk about, and some of us on one side or the other will turn out to be correct, but the outcome simply isn't knowable to us. If you were Kim Pegula and asked McDermott today, he'd tell you the truth, which might be that he sees no chance, he sees a small chance, or they're going to work really hard to get him up to speed because they think he's an impact player. McDermott DOES have an opinion. It's just that we don't know what it is, and he won't tell us.

I grew up in Buffalo in the 50s. In those days vegetarian was a hot dog without chili. I'd say go to Ted's.

Shoulda said he doesn't have to pass block.

We haven't forgotten. And we're grateful.

You keep saying this, and it's stupid, to be frank. If he can't pass block and you put him in on first down, the defense knows that you aren't going to run 1/3 to 1/4 of your playbook. That's a big advantage for the defense. McKenzie can run all the pass routes. He doesn't have to block. And he returns punts.

Singletary lines up wide. You can argue all you want. The fact is that you don't play on offense or on defense unless you do essentially all the things that the position asks of you. That's why rookies rarely start from day one, even rookies who HAVE played four years of high school and four or five years of college. They don't because they can't do everything they need to be able to do, and the opponent quickly figures that out. They're called one-trick ponies for a reason, and there's a reason one-trick ponies don't play in the league. Ask CJ Spiller. Spiller couldn't do everything NFL coaches asked him to do, and he played in a national powerhouse program in college. It simply isn't easy to learn to do all the things that running backs are supposed to do.

The problem is that if he can't block, or he can't run all the receiving routes, it becomes very clear to the rest of the league very quickly. Then he's something of a liability on the field, because the defense knows there's only a limited number of ways the Bills get him the ball, and the rest of the time he's a decoy. That's a big advantage for the defense, and it's a waste of a roster spot just to have a threat like that on the field for 3-4 plays a game. He MUST be able to play the position, all aspects of the position, or he MUST be able to be the kick returner. Or both. It's the only way he can make the 53.

They're not going to release him. He doesn't cost the Bills a roster spot, so there's no reason not to keep him and see what happens. What might happen is that at the end of preseason, when he doesn't make the 53, he could leave the Bills if he can find a team that WILL put him on their roster. That, too, seems unlikely, so the Bills will probably have him for another season as just an extra player hanging around. Maybe next season he makes. People who are negative about him need to recognize, however, that we've seen the guy touch the ball twice, once for a long touchdown and once for a long run from scrimmage. In both cases, he showed speed, change of direction, recognition, balance, and some strength. On the pass play, he made a nice catch. Now, on Friday, he makes a play for a touchdown in the rookie mini-camp. The guy has talent.

We had this conversation a few weeks ago. There's nothing much to talk about, so here's another chance for people. Personally, I'd love to have a serious break-away threat in the running back room, someone who when you put him on the field is a threat to make a big play. Wade is the only guy on the roster who is that kind of threat. His lack of special teams experience hurts him; he'd have a shot if he could be the kick returner, and last time we talked about this, someone pointed out that at his position in rugby he actually had a lot of experience fielding balls kicked in the air. However, those ball fly truer than a football, especially a football in the wind. Worse for him, however, is that Stevenson has come along to challenge McKenzie for his spot, so Wade has two kick returners to beat out of the special teams spot. On top of that, as others have pointed out, to be a third down back, he has to be able to block. He's had a couple of years to practice and learn that role, so that's something, but he doesn't see the field unless he's very good at that role. On that interview he did on some British podcast several months ago, he admitted that he still was weak on blocking technique, and how good he is recognizing defenses and reacting to blitzes is anyone's guess. Put those two points together with just his general lack of experience and you have to guess that he's a longshot to make the roster. If he does, it's a credit to him, McDermott and the coaching staff.

Start over from their email. When you click to start the process, the pass code is on the next screen. Look for it.

It will be interesting to see how many Steelers fans show up in Buffalo. It will be a test of the Steelers' staying power. A calculating fan will realize that there probably won't be many Steelers fans there because the game will be sold out and Bills fans want to see the AFCE flag raised. Plus, Steelers fans have to be discouraged about their team, and about the strength of the Bills. On the other hand, Steelers fans are resilient. It will be interesting to see.

At Super Bowl XXV I sat next to a guy who was born and raised in NYC. His family had had Giants tickets for decades - his father, maybe even his grandfather. He went to all the Giants games. In the early 80s he took a job in Buffalo. He bought Bills season tickets. Every weekend the Bills weren't at home, he flew home to go to the Giants games. In the late 80s, he moved back to NYC and kept his Bills tickets. Then he went to every Giants home game, and went to Buffalo for home games if the Giants weren't home. That season he had seen every Giants home game, every Bills home game when the Giants weren't home, every Bills playoff game and every Giants playoff game except the NFC Championship game, which was in SF and there was no way to see both championship games. Then he saw a Bills-Giants Super Bowl.

You're right about positive or negative. Some people here, and in the league, subscribe to the theory that you build to make a run at the Lombardi, and then you rebuild. Hard to say whether that approach is right or wrong, but it's clear McBeane aren't following that model. Their model is that they will keep adding good players, and in order to win the coaches and the players have to continue to improve at coaching and playing.

Arm - Nice summary. I have a couple of reactions. One is that the solutions are long-term, not short-term. The Bills probably will get some help from the new people they've added, but the real impact of those people in the problem areas is likely not to be seen for a couple of seasons. The edge rushers probably will see the field in 2021 but like Epenesa, they will be expected to be large contributors in 2022. Anything more than that is a bonus. Same with the three offensive linemen - not likely to be impact players in year on. As I've said in other places, I think your analysis of Edmunds is incorrect. Edmunds wasn't regularly getting "fooled" in pass coverage. Edmunds was getting optioned. Teams began developing route trees that left Edmunds with two guys to cover over the middle - when he chose one, the QB threw the other way. It wasn't an Edmunds weakness; it was a defensive design weakness. It will be addressed in coaching - how well remains to be seen. Edmunds has his weaknesses, but he is pretty consistent in executing his assignment. He isn't Superman - he can't be in two places at one time.

There is NO reason to gamble more on this season's roster. The objective is sustained, long-term excellence. Period. It's not about the other teams and what they are doing or not doing. Build the best team you can for the longest possible time.

I'm a team player. I'm doing my part. And, for the record, I'm not very interested in Ertz. Too old, on the downslope.