Shaw66

So far as I could tell, there has been exactly one player drafted 30th who made the Hall of Fame - Sam Huff. I could study the draft for the next 100 hours and I wouldn't be able to tell you which guy in the draft was the next Sam Huff, or the next Thurman. For the past two years, I've had little to no interest in free agency or the draft. Enormous interest in the guys the Bills actually acquired, but no interest in the process running up the drafting or signing. Didn't see Diggs coming, didn't know who Epenesa was when he was drafted, didn't even realize that Sanders was a free agent.

I have a similar feeling. For me it's a combination of a couple of things. First, drafting 30th, the Bills aren't getting a Hall of Famer, so I just can't get all that excited. Second, drafting 30th means that right now there are about 40 possible guys who might be the Bills' pick. I don't have the energy to figure out who the top 20 are and then analyze the bottom 20. It's easier just to wait for the draft, see who they pick, then find out some things about the guy. When you're drafting 8th, there are only 10-12 guys to study. Like others, I have confidence that Beane will get a good player, and I'm interested to see who it is. Trying to figure out who it might be isn't my thing.

This is so true. The strength of the team is not the five most talented players on the roster; it's the guys from six to 35. There are a lot of moving parts to a team, and a quarter to a third of them move on each year. This year the Bills were unusual and are bringing almost the entire team back. But they have some free agents who will move in and take some spots, and they want rookies to move in and take spots, too. That's how they improve, and that's how they keep the roster young. Moving up is for the team that doesn't have stars. The Bills have stars and sure, they'd like a couple more, but they need three or four talented rookies making the squad more than they need one star rookie. If Beane were trading what he has, I'd bet he'd trade his first pick so he could have one more in each of the second and third, instead of trading a first and a second to move up for a better player. In other words, at this point, he'd like four quality rookies over one potential star rookie and one other.

The Dolphins fan makes a good point. You aren't a superstar NFL QB until you show you can do it all, consistently. He's right, Allen hasn't managed tough games in a hostile environment, not like the best have done it. Developing into a star QB is a five+ year project. Josh is on the road. He still could stumble before he becomes a master QB. There are no guarantees. However, if anyone, fans, coaches, players, are asked to name the QBs under 30 likely to become HOF-level stars like Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Brady, Josh is way up near the top of the list. So, yes, he could stumble, but Mahomes is the only other young QB I'd want over Josh.

Especially given how many snaps he plays. Keuchly was often in the top 5 in McDermott's heyday in Carolina. We'll see.

Actually, I'm old enough that I can't remember a lot of the history. But what I meant about ancient history was that the game is different now. I don't see a lot of point in comparing Edmunds to Mike Stratton. Mike Stratton never, never, never could do what the Bills ask Milano to do, and they play the same position on the roster. If you've read all my posts here today, you'll see that I said that I think - I don't know, but I think - that Edmunds' value is the amount of the field that he covers. There is no stat for passes not thrown, but I suspect that Edmunds has powerful impact in the middle of the pass defense. The best corners usually have low passes defended and low interceptions because teams don't throw at them. I think - but I don't know - that Edmunds has that kind of impact in the Bills pass defense. I also know that the classic Tampa 2 asks the MLB to drop into the deep middle zone as the two safeties move out to provide the deep coverage on the wide zones. I don't think there's ever been a middle linebacker with the speed and size (except maybe Urlacher) to handle that assignment. That skill doesn't show up in any stats. McD likes the Tampa 2. And that's really my only point. I think Edmunds does things on defense that are very important to McDermott. He's doing those things right now. Then I add to that Edmunds' work ethic and McDermott's steadfast belief that players get better year after year (until age catches up with them), and I think Beane and McDermott see a guy making a big contribution now and a guy whose contribution will grow.

Well, the Bills numbers aren't that telling. Only Poyer and Milano ahead of him, of guys who play a lot. But I fiddled with it and looked at tackles per snap across the league for all linebackers with more than 40 snaps per game. Edmunds was someplace around 25 or 30 on the list. Now, on a list sorted that way, you'd expect a good MLB to be someplace a good deal higher than that. So, that's some interesting data to put on the table. Still, I'm not convinced. I mean, I'm convinced, I've always been convinced that what to do about Edmunds is an open question, and it isn't a given that the Bills exercise the fifth year, let alone write a big check beyond that. It will depend on how McDermott values him. As I've said, I think McDermott values him much more highly than we do, because McDermott sees things we don't. I don't know that; but I think it's true. I think it's true that Edmunds occupies much more space in the short middle of the Bills zone than almost any other middle linebacker. I think that he covers the run and scrambling QBs from side to side much better than most middle linebackers. I think McDermott sees him as a guy who causes offenses a lot of problems. But then I look at that tackles per snap list, the league-wide linebacker list, and I gotta wonder. Thanks. The ancient history doesn't move me much. Brown and Pos, yes, they made a lot of tackles, but those defenses funneled the run to them. Those guys were serious liabilities in the passing game - it's clear that McD is about stopping the pass, and that's why I think he values Edmunds. There's no question that Edmunds isn't a stud in the run D, but McDermott isn't looking for that stud - he wants a stud in the pass defense.

Come on. If tackles is a deceiving stat, that "late to arrive" is total bs. You can't have it both ways. If the argument is that he takes bad angles, he goes to the wrong gaps, he arrives late on plays, and he has bad instincts, how is it possible that he's in on all these tackles. They aren't phantom tackles. He was actually there for the tackle. Why don't other Bills have all those tackles? Maybe they're the problem.

Enigma is the word. It's enigmatic how a guy who has trouble with "his instincts diagnosing plays, hitting the right gaps, taking the right leverage, defending passes, shedding blocks and tacking" could be 17th in the league in tackles. Particularly when someone else on his team (Poyer) was 12th. Particularly when he played only 15 games and almost everyone ahead of him played 16 - if you extrapolate for 16 games he was 9th in the league in tackles. So how bad can those instincts, gap decisions, leverage decisions and tackling be? Don't get me wrong - what you say rings true to me - what you describe is what I see. But I think we may remembering the mistakes and not remembering every play. 9th in the league in tackles ain't bad. I wonder, for example, if he's really a late arrival on the scene, which is something that has bothered me since he got to Buffalo. Why is he showing up right after the tackle? Well, if he's 9th in the league in tackles, he's showing up on time a lot of the time, and maybe, just maybe, he isn't arriving late on the scene of tackles at all. Maybe he's just pursuing every play and arriving on the scene of tackles that most other MLBs never arrive at. I don't know, there's no stat for late arrivals, but 9th in the league in tackles says he getting to a lot of tackles. Wrong gaps? I saw a lot of that his first season, not much his second, and he seemed to regress last season. How much of the apparent regression was Star's absence? I don't know. I want him to be more physical and more of a sure tackler, but I doubt that his production is nearly as poor as you suggest it is. And, let me say again that watching the games I see it the way you say. I just think what I see is a naive, fan's view. Ninth in tackles is ninth in tackles. My guess is that Edmunds is better than you and I think, and that he's not done getting better.

I think McDermott is better than you think. McDermott is an absolute realist about what he is doing, and he knows that he can't let how he feels about a guy control his football decisions. He is dedicated to the bottom line - you're either doing the job or you're not, you're either improving or you're not. He's dedicated to competition. I don't think he has any trouble at all looking a guy in the eye, a guy he loves, and telling him that his time is up. McDermott is committed to doing his job, and doing his job means having those hard conversations. Where McDermott may have a problem is not with Tremaine the person, but Tremaine the athlete. The idea of having a 6'5" 250 pound guy who runs like a safety playing in the middle of the defense is an idea that McD may not want to give up on. It's really tantalizing to him. Edmunds is probably the best middle linebacker in the history of the game for covering the deep middle in the Tampa 2, a defense McDermott loves. THAT's what McDermott will have trouble giving up on.

Wins isn't a linebacker stat. It's only a QB stat. I've said this before - NO position player other than QB delivers wins. I heard Colin Cowherd talking about this a few years ago, when JJ Watt still was the consensus best defensive player in the league. He asked a Vegas bookmaker how much Watt being out of the lineup changes the point spread. The answer: one half point. The best defensive player in the league, one half point. It's a team game, it's a coaches' game, it's a quarterbacks game. No one should be expecting the middle linebacker to deliver wins. He's just a piece of the puzzle, a more important piece than some other pieces, but just a piece. And that's why I'm not very concerned about this. Edmunds is certainly in the top 15 MLBs, probably in the top 10. Unless you can get me the consensus number 1 linebacker in the league, the performance of the team is not going to change very much by getting someone better at MLB. And if Edmunds fits the style of play that McD wants, then you're almost certainly not going to get someone who fits his defense better. Edmunds is playing what is the fifth or sixth most important position in a game where only one - maybe two - positions really matter.

Thanks. I don't pay much attention to what others are getting The Lawson info makes your point nicely. Sounds like we agree about what McDermott thinks; you're just more disappointed in that assessment than I am. I'm trusting McD.

I think you're missing the point. If Edmunds is a guy who is " a detriment to his team and targeted by the opposition," I don't think anyone is paying him $13 million a year. That doesn't happen any more. Clowney, who is a better raw talent than Edmunds, only got $12 million when he hit free agency, and he is/was a guy with elite pass-rush talent. That's why I think either (1) you're wrong in your assessment of how good Edmunds is, he's actually worth $13-15, and the Bills might very well pay it, or (2) you're right in your assessment, and he could be had for $7-8 million. If you're right about how good he is, no one is paying $15. Teams wouldn't even pay Clowney $15. Plus, I think you're underestimating McDermott's confidence in the Growth Mindset. McDermott thinks his players, including Edmunds, are going to get better every year. He and Beane only choose players who have a burning desire to improve, and Edmunds is one of those. So I'm sure they are very much of the view that we haven't seen the best of Tremaine Edmunds yet. I'll be amazed if they don't exercise the option and/or extend.

It's a good point that bad contracts are a big obstacle to long-term success. And I clearly don't know what to do about Edmunds. However, I do wonder why you think that Edmunds is going to get a big contract from someone if his game is fundamentally flawed by his processing speed. I mean, maybe you're right - maybe he just can't make on-field decisions as quickly and as accurately as necessary to play the position. But if that's so obvious, why would he get a "big contract"? One thing I learned several years ago, I think when Jairus Byrd's contract was up, was that the agents, the players, and the teams know how much players are worth. It's become even more true over the years. Teams don't overpay for players in free agency like they used to. The Bills knew how much Byrd was worth, and they had the discipline to let someone overpay him if they wanted to. Now, and for the past few years, the Clowneys and Richard Shermans and other guys with big press clippings but less than stellar recent play sit in free agency for weeks or months and eventually sign for not a ton of money. So, I think that one of three things is likely: Edmunds is actually very valuable to this defense (despite the concerns we fans have), and the Bills will exercise the option and/or extend to keep him long-term, not exercise and let him test the market, like Shaq Lawson and Milano, and see what happens, or extend him on more of a prove-it deal, which means the Bills will be looking actively for a replacement. What I don't think is going to happen is that Edmunds is going to get a mega-contract from any other team. If he's worth a mega-contract, the Bills will pay him. If he isn't, no one else will.

Yes, he took advantage of Edmunds, but I don't think it was Edmunds fault. The Chiefs crossed receivers in the zone that Edmunds waited for, and Mahomes waited for Edmunds to cover one of them. When Edmunds committed, Mahomes threw the other way. That's a scheme problem, not an Edmunds problem. One play was very clear in the replays - Kelce was crossing right to left and Edmunds had him. Mahomes broke right, outside the pocket as if to take off running. Edmunds followed Mahomes, which opened a passing lane to Kelce. Mahomes completed the pass. If Edmunds had stayed with Kelce, Mahomes was on his way up the field. Scheme, plus a QB who can execute it.

I agree. It's a constant chess game with the best QBs, and KC and Mahomes clearly won the chess game in the Championship game. Now, it's still true that when McD and Frazier figure out the next moves, Edmunds has to be able to make them, and that remains to be seen. And there's another piece to this, that others have talked about. McD is very clear that his D requires a lot of pressure on the QB from the front four. McD doesn't want to be blitzing, because he wants Milano and Edmunds covering all the space they do. That's why Gunner's point about Oliver and Epenesa and Philips is important. There's three high picks on the defensive line that really need to show more than we've seen. So far as I was concerned, the biggest difference between the AFC Championship game and the Super Bowl was Tampa's ferocious pass rush, pass rush that game from the front four. Pressure on great QBs is the only solution, and it has to be pressure generated without blitzing all the time. Bado, he was a lot better in year 2. Clearly better. But I agree about play making. He's been athletic enough to get his hands on the ball, but not athletic enough to get possession. It's consistent with what I said about him a couple minutes ago - he's really good at being in the area, but he isn't as good at actually closing the deal. Still, my guess is that when you add up all the pluses and minuses, he's a top 10 MLB - in the top third in the league, and you don't let that go lightly.

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.