Shaw66

My pet peeve: Draft position is irrelevant once you hit the field. Where Edmunds was drafted has nothing to do with whether the Bills keep him. It's all about how he contributes to the team, how he fits the defense, whether he can be replaced, etc. Kyle Williams didn't start because he was outplaying a 5th round pick, and Aaron Maybin didn't get cut because he underplayed a #9 overall. You play or don't play if you're good enough or not, regardless of where you're drafted. Edmunds future has nothing to do with where he was picked. I continue to think that we don't completely understand how McDermott values Edmunds in the defense. I suspect, but I don't know, that Edmunds' mobility in pass defense is worth a lot more to McD than it is to the rest of us. I think McD expects Edmunds to continue to learn the things that he needs to learn. It's the old adage about you can't teach speed. Or height. There just aren't a whole of MLBs out there who combine Edmunds' size and speed, and that is, I think, worth a lot to McD.

This is a really good point. Beane's drafting is on the line here - there's a lot of big draft capital invested in the defense, and it needs to perform better than it has. As for Edmunds, I'm still an Edmunds supporter, for several reasons. I agree with some of the complaints about him. My biggest complaint is that he isn't as physical as the MLB should be. It's the single biggest thing that makes him different from Keuchly, whom I consider to be the ideal MLB. Keuchly is a solid, sure tackler; Edmunds still plays like he's done his job so long as he's in the place where he's supposed to be. I don't agree so much about "instincts" and similar comments that suggest that he's often in the wrong place. If he's in the wrong place often, how can he possibly be accumulating the tackle stats he has? If he's in the wrong place more often than other MLBs, then if he corrected that flaw, he would have tackle stats that would be truly mind-bending. He's in a lot of tackles, which is what he's supposed to be. I criticized him a lot in his rookie about hitting the wrong gap. I think he's improved tremendously in that respect. He now understands his role, and reads his gaps much better. Whether he has "instincts," I don't know, but he's smart and dedicated, and year after year he will improve in that category. People complain about his getting "beat" often in pass coverage. In the Championship game, KC clearly took advantage of the Bills defensive scheme, which expects Edmunds to cover a lot of ground. Mahomes just waited for Edmunds to commit to one area, and then he threw to another. It wasn't Edmunds making bad decisions - it was Mahomes responding to Edmunds' decision. That's a scheme problem, not Edmunds problem. Plus, we only see the plays when Edmunds gets beat. We don't see the plays where Edmunds presence, where his speed and length, cause the QB to go elsewhere with the ball. That's a huge impact on the defense that is not reflected at all in the stats. I think what the Bills have is a guy who right now is better than the average NFL MLB, and in some ways much better, because no other MLB impacts the passing offense the way he does. Statistically, he's better than average in tackles. He's young and continuing to learn and to grow. The question is, as it always is, can the Bills do better with someone else? The answer is that finding someone better is not going to be easy. The notion that Preston Brown was somehow better is laughable - he was a serious liability in the passing game. You can't have the best player in the league at every position; having an above-average MLB who likely will continue to improve is a good thing and something not to be discarded lightly. I wouldn't go looking for Edmunds' replacement - if one came along, sure, I'd take him, but for now, I keep Edmunds and I exercise the 5th year option. Then I see what market is like when he becomes eligible for free agency. I'll have Allen's deal done by then, and I'll know more Edmunds.

Right, wrong forum.

You were intending to be charitable with the donuts anyway; maybe would have been best just to give the guy a donut.

Again, its picky, but what I think he meant is that he will trade up for need. He's always going to take the BPA, but if he has a need he will trade up to get a BPA who fits a need. He traded up for Ford.

Thanks to you and Widenine. Helpful responses.

When did he say he drafted for need? I don't recall that. He traded up for need to get Allen, but in the space he traded into he took the BPA. I know that's a silly little distinction, but it actually makes some sense. He was going to take BPA if he stayed at 12, but he moved up to take a BPA he needed. Then he did it again - traded up to take the BPA, Edmunds. Where did he say he went need over BPA?

That was fun! Billy Shaw leading OJ, baby! That was a much more violent era. Whew, the hitting, especially after the guy was down. And the receivers were getting slaughtered.

It's a good question, and the answer must be a combination of what many have said: 1. They're counting on Star. He'll be motivated, for sure, because he knows that his absence created perhaps the Bills' most glaring weakness. 2. Philips should improve (or, as someone suggested, he could be history). 3. Beane drafts strictly BPA in the early rounds, BPA at positions of need in the later rounds. If a stout DT isn't the BPA in round or two, then I expect Beane will draft one in the later rounds. 4. There still may be a free agent addition, or even a trade. In any case, there's going to be more talent in camp than what's currently on the roster.

Yeah, and his diet sucks. He eats anything.

Cant see him claiming a spot on the roster. He's not replacing Diggs, Beasley, Sanders, McKenzie, or Davis.

You can argue about whether they're doing the right thing, but there's no arguing that McBeane do what they say they will do. They've said they want to keep their players and build through the draft. That's what they're doing.

I'm with you until you get to the contract part. I thought they both played hard, did their jobs. They seemed to be good teammates. Not signing them was a good decision in both cases. Byrd wanted too much money; Gilmore wasn't the right fit. McDermott's defense isn't predicated on having a shut-down corner; it's predicated on having a scheme corner, a guy with the high-end physical ability who understands the scheme well. White is a better scheme corner than Gilmore can cover the elite receiver better than White, but unlike Gilmore, you almost never see White looking around as if to say "I thought YOU had that guy." Gilmore gets beat by misplaying the defensive scheme; White doesn't. McDermott wasn't going to pay premium dollars to get a corner who doesn't play the scheme.

Good stuff. Morse is on notice too. Bates is getting prepped, and Feliciano played well there. Bottom line is that Lamp gives McDermott what he wants - competition.

Amazing how hard these guys work.

The Dolphins losing streak was as bad as the drought. It was horrible.

Raloh wanted Miami but league wanted Buffalo. It was the only franchise left, so he took it.

This made me laugh. I guess it's true that the picks helped in the Diggs trade, but it's not like the Diggs trade wouldn't have happened if the Bills hadn't made the Teller trade. I don't think the Teller trade was a disaster or to use your word, a "fail," but it IS amusing the extent to which people will go to defend Beane. I think Beane has been excellent, but nobody gets them all right. If Beane had a chance to undo that one, I'm sure he would. Mickey Mantle struck out once in a while, and so does Beane.

Thanks for this. I think many people don't see that this philosophy is at the core of the how the Bills operate. The Bills believe their players can learn to play better. They believe that they should have an offense and a defense that is continually evolving, becoming more complex and more nuanced, so it can perform in different ways. And they believe they can make that work because their players can learn to fit themselves into that scheme. So, the Bills look for players who believe in the Growth Mindset, and they ask those players to invest in themselves by committing to get better. They go looking for guys, in the draft and in free agency, who have shown the ability and interest in continual improvement. And this signing also relates to two related points. One is that Beane likes to sign guys who have underperformed coming off their rookie deals. A guy like Lamp, who went high in the second round of the draft, has the physical tools to play the game at a high level, but he underperformed for some reason, so his original team didn't lock him up. The Bills pursue guys like that, telling them to come to Buffalo on a short-term deal and prove to themselves and their coaches that they can learn and grow. And when a guy does show that, the Bills re-sign them, like Feliciano and Williams. The other point here is that offensive linemen in the draft are a crapshoot. I saw something here recently about how many first-round offensive tackles have underperformed. They're a crapshoot because college offenses don't require these guys to learn any offensive line techniques - just stick the guy across from you and stay with him for a one-count, and the play is gone. They aren't pass blocking for 3-4 seconds, and they aren't running complicated running schemes. So, a lot of the offensive linemen who make it in the NFL make it after having bounced around the league for a few years, on practice squads or on the bench, getting a few starts here and there, learning technique, building their bodies to the needs of the league. Then, around year three or four, they emerge as starters. Not everyone, of course, but many of them. Beane clearly would rather get three or four offensive line prospects in their third or fourth or fifth seasons and try them out than burn a number one or two pick on a guy they hope will work out. Clearly, they were high on Ford, but Ford is an example of the problem. Not only has he been hurt; when he has played, he hasn't shown that he is a solid NFL starter. HE simply didn't learn enough playing college football at a high level that translated immediately to the NFL. I think this signing is what we can expect from Beane, year after year. Will he chase a high-end offensive line free agent, and take a tackle in the first round? Yes, maybe, but he's going to have to be really sold on the guy. (It would be interesting to know what Beane thinks about the Morse signing, for example, now that he's a couple seasons into it.) In the meantime, he'll keep on signing five guys who've been around the league for several years, expecting that two of them will stick, and of the two, one will become a keeper. I agree. Players are seeing that Buffalo is a place where they can succeed, and when they succeed they are rewarded with a contract. Williams is one example. Milano is another. And they're seeing that guys like Feliciano, who might have made a few bucks more someplace else, also are staying, because this is a team they want to be with. I've said this before. At the end of his press conference at the end of the season, McDermott said the Bills are a team where players can come to play the best football of their lives. That quote is at the end of the Bills video about the Growth Mindset. McDermott is selling that point, and I think guys like Lamp are buying it.

Thanks for posting this. I learned a lot. These guys seem to think that the outside zone scheme is better suited to the passing game - checks at the line of scrimmage are easier, and the coordination of the line requires less practice time. Moss is, apparently, the better runner in that scheme, although Singletary could learn to be better. Moss is the better pass blocker, and Moss actually could be argued to be the better receiver. These guys point out what I noticed last year, which was that Allen and Singletary had trouble connecting - Allen sometimes was high, Motor wasn't ready, and Motor sometimes just dropped it. All of that points to the Bills leaning more on the outside zone scheme, Moss getting more touches, and perhaps Breida threatening to take snaps from Singletary. But, of course, McD likes to be multiple, and I think he'll be unwilling to give up the pulling-trapping style that Morse and others are suited to. We'll see.

Where do you get that guy? As I said, Fuller may have been the only one available. The Chiefs have one quality deep threat - Hill. The other guy has speed, but isn't a great receiver. McKenzie can do what he can do. There are two reasons the Chiefs offense is more effective than the Bills. One is Kelce. The other is that they have an effective running game. They force the defense to respect the run, especially the speed in their running game. They don't create downfield opportunities by having two great deep threats - they do it with one and with speed. Sanders will give the Bills what the Chiefs have - a great receiving corps that can get deep. What the Bills need is to come up with a better running game

Maybe you're right, but I don't think so. It wasn't like the Bills were attacking defenses with a bunch of 4.7 second 40 guys. Diggs is 4.42, Beasley, 4.49, John Brown 4.34, Isaiah McKenzie 4.42. The reason the Bills weren't getting deep is that teams weren't threatened by the run - that's what teams saw on film, so they could play a safety deep or play cover 2.

Three more completions would be nice, but they wouldn't be "huge." They would be worth 9 to 21 points, since each would either be a touchdown or put the Bills in scoring position. Of course, without those three completions, the Bills might score on those drives, anyway. But call it 9-21. That would be a nice addition. It would have moved the Bills from number 2 to number 1 in team scoring (which points out that scoring really wasn't the Bills' problem last season). The argument for a deep threat isn't about the season; it's about key games. How can the Bills best threaten the BEST defenses, like the Chiefs in the AFC Championship game? And, I agree, the Bills would like to have had a quality deep threat against the Chiefs. They had two - Diggs and Brown, but both were hobbled, and the defense handled them really well. So what is your solution? Get Tyreek Hill? Will Fuller is the only guy I could think of who would be a serious deep threat who was available. He was probably too pricey for the Bills, and I'm not sure I'd take Fuller over Sanders in any case; I've never been a big Fuller fan. But at least I'd get the argument. The thing about this is that we aren't talking about big differences to the offense. Will Fuller is not such a great deep threat that he's going to change the Bills offense all that much. Diggs already lead the league in receiving; how much more help does he need? How much more help does Beasley need? I think we're talking about marginal differences. And Sanders is a better mid-range threat than Fuller or Brown. When the Bills signed Sanders, I liked it because he's a quality receiver, but I was disappointed like you that he isn't a true burner, at least no longer. I just don't see that it makes that much difference. Diggs can get deep; McKenzie; Davis has shown he can; Knox can; Sanders can. We're not talking about great speed, speed like Hill, but it's speed that can get deep. Just like we always talk about the run game setting up the pass or the pass setting up the run, the Bills' short- and mid-range passing game can set up the deep game. The problem is much more about Allen hitting receivers deep that it is about having true deep threats.

Rodgers led league with 14 over 40. Allen had 8. So if Allen improved nicely he would have 11, only three more deep balls a season. No one throws many deep balls. That isn't where the game is played, because everyone wants to stop the bombs. The Bills are trying to improve from 10 to 30, and that's where Sanders helps.

I could have been Shaw16! I'd forgotten most of that history. Thanks.