Shaw66

Got it. Thanks. I don't disagree. I trust Beane to do the cost-benefit breakdown (and the evaluation of the risk) too. And the piece we're missing is implied in what you say. The piece we're missing is what McDermott and Frazier and others think the Bills need to make the defensive front seven better. As you say, Epenesa, Oliver, and Star may be much of the solution. And I agree about Hughes, too. Like most fans, I may be overly attracted to the star player. I watched Frank Clark and Chris Jones disrupt things and don't see someone on the Bills who can do that. I'm thinking it's critical to have that disruptive guy somewhere on the front seven. Can they make Milano into something like the 3-4 OLB pass rusher? Bills obviously aren't going to change scheme to do that, but I think someone has to step as something more than just solid at his position. Hughes almost was that kind of guy in his younger days, but he certainly isn't now. Oliver hasn't turned into an Aaron Donald-like player. I don't think Epenesa is that guy - he hasn't flashed that kind of brilliance. So, I think the question that you and I can't answer is what does McDermott think he needs, and is he correct? Beane will get him what McD thinks he needs.

"I just don't think they will get the bang for the buck you expect from signing Watt." That's a fair assessment. That means you're evaluating the Watt opportunity as probably a bad bet. That is, you think it's a relatively small likelihood that he will give the Bills the kind of play that they need. I won't argue with that assessment - everyone can make his own judgment. I think the problem with that conclusion, however, is that it leaves the Bills nowhere. The Bills have a very good team, and one of the things they need to get better is some explosive defensive line play. They need one or two higher caliber playmakers on the defensive line. That's why KC got Frank Clark two years ago. So the question is "where are the Bills going to get that kind of playmaker?" You might get lucky and find one in the draft, but if you do, that guy isn't likely to be a real playmaker for two or three years. A guy who is going to be a stud as a rookie is very unlikely to fall far enough in the draft for the Bills to get him. So the Bills are limited to finding their playmaking dlineman in free agency or a trade. I don't know who's on the list, but it's a very short list of guys who are playmakers and either free agents or available in trade. They all will be expensive, and they all will carry some risk. So, if you don't want the Bills to take a chance on Watt, who do you want them to take a chance on? (If you've answered that in this thread, I'm sorry, I haven't gone to look for it). Or, do you want the Bills just to stick with what they have, hope Epenesa and Oliver take big steps up, maybe find a role player or two in the draft or free agency?

Yeah, I agree with all that. I'd say also that McDermott is an additional attraction. He knows Vrabel, I know, but I think the word is out around the league that if you really like to play, McDermott is guy you'll really like to play for. I don't know anything about Tennessee's ownership and management, but I think the word also is out that the Pegulas do everything first class, and Beane is as committed to winning as McDermott - in other words, more or less insanely committed. Put it all together, and I think that Watt easily could find the Bills to be the most attractive package. However, it's pretty subjective stuff, so I could understand how he might prefer one of the other teams. Just writing this, it occurs to me how interesting it is that it's hard to make a case for any NFC team. I don't think he'd go to the Packers just because he's from Wisconsin, and I'm not convinced about the stability of their QB situation. I mean, Rodgers is great and all, but he's kind of a prima donna, and the Pack certainly have succession in mind. Not Dallas or anyone else in the east. New Orleans has a tougher QB picture. Tampa, I suppose. The Rams are unsettled at QB. Arizona? Seattle? The AFC teams would all seem to be much more attractive.

This list makes sense. The reason KC and Buffalo are 1 and 2 is the quarterbacks. The next three have iffy QB situations. Watt has to be willing to bet on the run-oriented offense the Ravens feature, or bet on Tannehill or Mayfield taking another step forward. None of them are stupid bets, but each of him asks him to run the risk that he'll need to be part of a truly dominant defense to be sure that his team will win. Because of their QBs, Buffalo and KC are saying to Watt "we want you to be the best you possibly can be, and you will contribute to making us great on both sides of the ball." Now, if it's true that money is important to Watt, then the team that's offering the most money likely will be the winner, because, as I said, none of the top five teams would be a stupid choice. Beane will be smart about how much money he has and what he thinks Watt is worth. My guess is if the money is important to Watt, someone will outbid Beane. Watt's older, with more miles on him, than the typical Beane free agent, and I doubt Beane will overspend on him. If money is secondary to Watt, and the football experience and Super Bowl prospects are what's really important to Watt, then I expect Beane and the Bills will be in the thick of the competition for him.

I showed this to my 30-year-old daughter. Didn't tell her anything about it except it was a JJ Watt tweet with a video of his wife on their wedding day. She looked at it for two seconds and said "He's coming to Buffalo! Wings, those red and blue hearts. No doubt."

We could probably draft a guy who is going to be a first-year Hall of Famer? You must be a really big Beane fan.

Is there a Bills defensive lineman who has a 2020 highlight reel like this?

No, not confident. Bills have a shot, I'm sure, but there are other attractive spots. It just seemed like a good response.

Then don't watch the Bills next season.

I haven't gotten into the speculation about where he might go. It's all guess work. Having said that, I'd forgotten the Vrabel connection. That's real. I don't think Watt is the kind of guy who will go to Green Bay because it's going home or to Pittsburgh because his brothers are there. I think he's a football-first guy. I think he's going to go to the place where he thinks he will have the best football experience, subject only to the compensation meeting whatever he might want in that regard. Best football experience means opportunities to be on a team that excels and to be a significant contributor. Buffalo and Tennessee are two likely contenders. There probably are some others. Buffalo and Tennessee seem to be in similar cap situations, so as between those two, money shouldn't be the deciding factor. As I suggested, I think Watt will be about getting at least whatever he thinks his minimum is and not so much about getting maximum dollars.

You may be right about that. So far as I can tell, 3-4 guys and 4-3 guys are different body types and have significantly different standard assignments. I'm not a coach and I don't really know, but I have two counters to your comment that make me think the 3-4 vs 4-3 thing is not all that important. The two counters are Watt and McDermott themselves. Can't say I've studied Watt all that carefully. I watch the Bills and whatever other games I happen to be interested in. However, it's my impression the the Texans moved Watt all over the line. They asked him to do a lot of different things, and he could do pretty much anything they asked. He is, I think, one of those transcendent football players - just put him on the field and let him play. At any given time there may be a half dozen players like that in the game, usually fewer. Watt's the kind of guy McDermott wants, a guy with superior physical abilities who also is a consummate student of the game. Watt understands line play like few guys in the league. So I think he's a guy who can make the shift from 3-4 and find some position, probably multiple positions, where he can be an impact player. After all, McDermott's fundamental objective for his defensive linemen is win your battle, and Watt has been outstanding in that category, wherever he lines up. As for McDermott, he want versatility in his players. Versatile players allow him to complicate his scheme. Remember that Watt would be platooned. It seems likely to me that he could adapt to and play the three tech or either of the defensive end slots. He might even be able to play Watt as the one tech on spot duty, just to mix things up. Bottom line, I think Watt would bring almost a unique skill set for a defensive lineman, and McDermott loves to put guys like that to work. After all, that's why he wanted Edmunds - he wants guys who can do things on the field that others can't. McDermott is confident that he can make unique players assets.

For me, the Watt decision is simple. A year ago, the Bills needed a top-10 receiver. The only top-10 players who are available have a back story. Diggs had a back story, so he was available. Is there a risk taking a guy with a back story? Sure, but every decision carries risk. This year, the Bills need a top-10 defensive lineman. Watt is clearly one of those. He has a back story, so he is available. Is there a risk? Sure. Would you like to see JJ Watt rushing the passer for the Bills? Sure. If Beane and Watt can make a deal, it's a no brainer.

This is pretty amazing.

I will suggest again that in his end-of-season press conference, McDermott was talking to Watt when he said

Of course they promote the game no matter what. As I said, they could have promoted Rodgers and Allen as much as they promoted Brady and Mahomes, and they would have gotten the same ratings. Think of it this way. If the NFL has a good story to tell about the game, and they make sure they almost always have a good story to tell, they're going to get X% of viewers around the country. Every year they will maximize however many real football fans there are, because they have a good story - fans want to see the Brady story, the Mahomes story, the Rodgers story, the Allen story. The NFL gets those viewers whatever city the QBs play in. Then there are the non-football fans who watch because they want to be at a Super Bowl party, they want to see the ads, they enjoy the spectacle of the whole thing. Just like the football fans, the number of viewers they get from the non-football fans also is not city-dependent. Those non-football fans tune in for the show, not for the city. The one big variable is the people who aren't football fans and who ordinarily don't watch, because they aren't into the spectacle and the things that get some non-football fans to watch. How do you get those people to watch? Well, most of those people are the people who are interested for some other reason - not football, not the spectacle, not the half-time show. How do you get a lot of THOSE people? By having the two teams come from really big metropolitan areas, because those people have a third reason to watch - civic pride. When the Bills are in the Super Bowl, everyone in Buffalo will watch, including a lot of people who don't ordinarily watch. But the actual number of people Buffalo can bring to the TV for that reason is a LOT smaller than the actual number of people who can come to the TV in New York City, LA or a couple of other cities. And Dallas, which although it doesn't have the same numbers, has some ability to draw non-football fans because of the image they built. It's the additional viewers from the cities where the two teams come from that drive the numbers.

Don't kid yourself. Those guys dream about dollars, not about great theater. Sure, they got Mahomes and Brady, but they would have promoted the QBs with any combination of those two and Rodgers and Allen. They could have promoted any of those as a dream matchup, but that isn't nearly as important as having two big markets represented in the game. They would have preferred Mahomes and the New York football Giants and whatever that number 8 guy's name is.

Whatever LA is, it's an absolute certainty that if you asked the NFL to list their top 15 preferred teams in the Super Bowl, neither KC nor Tampa Bay is on the list. The ratings are driven by the big TV markets, and the NFL wants teams from the big TV markets in the Super Bowl. Just like the NBA and Major League Baseball. Tampa Bay and MIlwaukee is not a dream matchup in the World Series.

They didn't get their dream matchup. They got two lousy TV markets. If you're in professional sports, NY-LA or something like that is your dream matchup.

Daughter has a good friend from college. She has two brothers living in southern Cal. They're all jocks. One of the brothers has a girlfriend, and she's a good friend of Kyle Allen's girlfriend. With me so far? So Allen and his GF invited them to watch the game with them. It turned out the party was Darnold's house. One brother brought the other brother along. And there you have it. Just stupid five degrees of separation stuff. I told my daughter I wanted pictures, but haven't seen anything yet.

Yeah. A couple of my daughter's friends are watching the game with them.

Random info I just heard. Don't ask me how I know. Too convoluted.

What to do at contract time is exactly the right question. I'll talk about that in a minute. Age isn't an excuse. But age is relevant in Edmunds' case, because players develop with experience, and his age made him and continues to make him relatively inexperienced. He should continue to develop. The fact that he should continue to develop is relevant to your more important question. I think there are very, very few players who are so important that you pay them whatever they want. Allen is one of those. I don't think Edmunds is. The Bills have to evaluate Edmunds, decide how important he is to the defense, decide how much better they think he is going to get, and then put a dollar value on that. If Edmunds puts a higher value on himself than the Bills do, the Bills have to have the discipline to let him walk. I would definitely exercise the fifth-year option on him, because it gives the Bills another year to see how he develops and because it gives the Bills another year to see whether his successor might be in the pipeline. If you ask me, I certainly would pay him at the top-10 level. Not the top-5 level. He's not producing at the top-5 level. But top-10? Sure, I'd pay at that level. Looking at annual salaries, the 8th highest inside linebacker is at $12 million, the 16th is at $8 million. The difference is just not that great. Paying Edmunds $12 million a year, which is a little better than top-10, would be worth it. You're not going to get a better guy for substantially less. I also think that the people who are down on him have unreasonable expectations. Players should not be evaluated based on where they were drafted. GMs are evaluated on where they drafted players, but players are evaluated by how they play. I think fans who think Edmunds is regularly out of position or plugging the wrong gaps are remembering the guy from two years ago. I think people who think he hurts the Bills in pass defense completely miss the point that he covers larger zones more effectively than almost any MLB I've watched, because he has the speed and body size to do that. He isn't and probably never will be a top-5 hitter. He tackles more like a safety than a classic middle-linebacker. But even there he's been improving regularly. If Edmunds leaves, fans will almost certainly be disappointed with his replacement. There's debate about Edmunds because he isn't playing to expectations. Compared to players in the league, he isn't so disappointing. I regularly thought Biscuit was over-rated. He NEVER played to his draft-hype.

These plays are two good examples of Zimmer's foot speed. On both plays I was stunned to see him pursuing the play. His speed contributed to several tackles he made around the line of scrimmage, too. I think he's a keeper.

I've written about Edmunds a lot. I may decide to get into the detailed discussion in this thread, but that largely will be repeating things I've said elsewhere. I think the Bills should keep Edmunds, and he should continue to be the Bills middle linebacker. When you get past all of the analysis and the details and the stats, the basic question is whether the Bills will have a better middle linebacker if they get rid of Edmunds. I think the answer to that question clearly is no. Edmunds is at a minimum a better than average NFL middle linebacker. He still is young for the league and growing into the role. An All-Pro middle linebacker is not an essential piece of a championship team. The Bills should keep Edmunds because he isn't a liability, his replacement almost certainly will be worse, and he has potential.

I think that's correct. Allen particularly, because he likes where he is and because he would care very much where he was sent. So I think we'll see the no-trade clause.