Shaw66

I had a few observations: 1. Great to have real, live football back. 2. Chiefs crowd made some noise. They have good fans there. 3. Defenses are catching up with the offenses. Kelce or no, the Chiefs didn't look anything like the high flying out fit everyone has grown to fear. 4. In particular, fast aggressive linebacking was on display. 5. Mahomes is outstanding. He's a great decision maker, in the pocket and on the run. Physically, I love Allen, but he needs to think his way through the game the way Mahomes does. 6. 3 notwithstanding, Chiefs win with Kelce. I just kept thinking about how Kincaid could have a similar kind of impact on the Bills offense. 7. Lions were wired to begin the game. They have to grow up and recognize that it's about being really good on every down, not emotionally explosive for a quarter. Still, give them credit. They didn't back down, and they put together a beautiful drive to win the game. Campbell sure seems like an inspirational leader. Fake punt was amazing. 8. The rookie Campbell would be nice to have in the middle, for sure. When I saw his pass break-up, my first thought was, "When did I ever see Edmunds make and athletic reaction like that break up a pass completion?" I'll be happy if we see Bernard do that. 9. Lions' fan turnout was impressive. 10. I like Collingsworth was not one of his better nights. Great as Mahomes is, the announcing has to be better than just chuckling and slobbering all over him. 11. January is a long way off, and the Bills have to take care of business rather than watching scoreboards, but it never hurts to be up on the Chiefs. Beat the Jets, and it's like the Bills have a head start on home field. If the Bills have to play the Chiefs in January, let's finally play them in Orchard Park.

There's another aspect of this that no one has talked about. By "this," I mean the original data showing that 46% of draftees are on the roster. The GM's concept of what needs to be done to construct a team also has to be considered. Yes, there are discussions to be had about how good or not so good the draftees were, what the batting average and slugging percentage is. However, there's also questions about the proper mix of free agent and draftee additions, Do you really want a roster of 53 guys, all of whom you've drafted? I don't think so, because if you're having that kind of draft success, you start having cap problems as these guys' rookie contracts expire. Especially when you factor in the experience that some guys can bring to your team at a lower price, it means that your team will be better. And success also is affected by the constant churning of the roster, generally, and that churning has to be managed. In view of all that, what's the optimal mix of drafted vs. free agent acquisition? I don't know. But I do think that Beane and McDermott are trying manage all of it to achieve a particular mix of athletes who can win. Either the team that they're building toward will win a Lombardi soon, or the Pegulas may lose faith in their particular team-building philosophy.

You guys are having a great discussion. I've enjoyed reading some of it. Happy, I think you're largely correct. The fact is, winning is a lot about teamwork, how athletes play together, and in some (certainly not all) cases it just isn't that important to have great talent at a position than it is to have good talent everywhere. I've saying that's particularly the case at middle linebacker, for example. I think Beane and McDermott may actually think for the team in general, teamwork is the most important thing. And I'd suggest that one reason we see Beane not having had much success at drafting true difference-makers is that he's not looking for those guys as much as we might like. I think their philosophy is that good athletes can learn to play together in ways that give them an execution edge, and that edge is (in their opinion) more valuable than the talent edge. That's really what McDermott is about. He wants a team of full of wrestlers who desperately want to win and who live to be part of a team. That's why we see guys like Spencer Brown and Terrel Bernard and Greg Rousseau and A.J. Epenesa getting drafted, guys who maybe can do a lot of different things for you, so you can teach them to be effective in multiple offenses or defenses. (And that's why they value depth players like Bates, too.) Before I start an argument, I'm not saying that's a good thing. I subscribe to the notion that you have to find a really key contributor in the draft from time to time. A guy like Micah Hyde (I know he wasn't drafted); what I mean it's important to add a guy like Micah to your team from time to time, a guy who isn't just good at his position, he turns out be almost essential to your success. You gotta find a Kyle Williams or Matt MIlano in a later round, or you gotta find a transcendent player in the first round. You have to hit on someone, on an Edmunds or a Rousseau or a Kincaid, because the player you hit on CAN make a difference. What I'm saying that is Beane and McDermott may have a different opinion. They may value the versatility of some high-value players like Gabriel Davis or Groot over what the Bills would have had if those guys were less versatile but bigger stars. Why would they value those guys so highly? Because at the core of McDermott's philosophy is the cult of the team, the belief that he can build a military-like machine out of a certain kind of athlete. He believes the machine will be more successful than a team with an extra star or two. That's the vision that the Pegulas invest in every time they extend Beane and McDermott.

This is a really interesting point. My recollection is that when he was drafted, a lot of the decision was supported by the opinion of his college coach, with whom McDermott is friendly, and by the fact that Bernard was, as you say, an extraordinary student of the game. (No one said this, that I recall, but he was sort of like Kellen Moore, a guy with an excellent college career who can at least survive in the NFL mostly on brain power.) The assumption is exactly what you say - that he can learn to do the physical things well enough, but his real benefit should be running the defense and playing mistake-free football. Kind of a Hyde-in-the-middle. That may be what McDermott sees in Bernard. And, by the way, that kind of on-field leadership is something Edmunds never grew into. It will be very interesting to see what happens at that position. I'd guess that McDermott and the coaches have a pretty good idea what to expect from Bernard, where he's going to help and where he's going to be a liability, and McDermott seems to have confidence in him. But we're naturally less confident, because all we know is that for all those great attributes, on the field Kellen Moore was still only Kellen Moore. Is Bernard's ceiling just too low for him to handle the position? It'll be interesting.

The question is whether Bernard has any of these!

There's one other point I've made before, and that's that I believe McBeane that MLB is the least important position on defense. If that's right, they don't think they need talent there that's as great as the talent they need at other positions. Why would that be? Well, for one reason, it's the one position that is surrounded by teammates. The middle linebacker is the only player who's not on an island. Every defensive lineman has to win his one-on-one battles. Milano and Johnson are more often one-on-one, as are the corners and safeties. The middle linebacker is the one guy who can get help from all his teammates around him. Edmunds covered a lot of ground. His replacement will cover less, more like a conventional middle linebacker. So, the defensive assignments of everyone around him will change but not very much. McBeane understood that six months ago, and they decided that they could make those adjustments without hurting the defense. I don't know any of that is correct, but it makes sense to me. McDermott and Beane certainly thought about all of this stuff in deciding how they were going to build the roster. We will see whether their judgments were correct.

Thanks. I've said it all before, but I'll respond to each point, for the record. It's not a question of "trust." The Pegulas have to decide whether they trust them, but we're just observers. But my observation is that they do a pretty good job figuring out who should play and who shouldn't, so there's some reason to believe that they have the guy they want in the middle. Maybe not, but some reason. First, something had to give. That isn't responsive to one my premises, which is that McBeane always address holes in the lineup. They aren't always right, but they always take swings at it. In the past three or four seasons, there hasn't been a time when Beane has said he just didn't have any money left or any draft picks left. He's always taken a swing. It would be uncharacteristic of Beane to just not do anything. (And I don't consider drafting Williams as "something," because you simply can't expect to a third round pick to be the guy in 2023. Second, I don't think their surprise had anything to do with not signing Edmunds. Edmunds may have gotten a bigger contract than they expected, but I think they fully expected SOME team to pay more than they wanted to pay. But even if it was only the Bears who outbid them, then they would have used the money they didn't spend on him to get another middle linebacker. But see First, above. They had the resources and they didn't buy another guy. And they then decided just to spend the money on Oliver, that means that they didn't think they had a problem at middle linebacker. Third, I now think you're right. They thought one of the guys they had would step up. That's exactly right. See First, again. They thought they had the guy. The important question is how do any of us know now that they were wrong? We've hardly seen Bernard play this summer, so how do we know that he's going to fail? Fourth, Kirksey was of course a good move. One of the things I now realize, however, is that signing Kirksey didn't necessarily mean that they were panicked about who's starting at middle linebacker. It could just as easily mean that they realized that they aren't comfortable having Dodson back up Bernard, and Kirksey was an opportunity get a backup better than Klein. Bottom line, of course, is that I don't know, and I've said that over and over. There are all sorts of things that may be going on here. It seems to me that some people are jumping to the conclusion that the position is a dumpster fire, and I'm saying that I'm not at all sure that's true. I'm not reaching any conclusions until I see the games. In fact, I'm not reaching any conclusions until November and December. The way seasons go for good teams, is they win enough games in the first half of the season to be in the playoff hunt, and along the way they figure out how to play. So, for me, the question isn't so much how Bernard is playing in September. It's how he (or Kirksey) is playing in November and December that matters. I think Beane and McDermott have planned for that. I'm sure they've planned for that. Their plan may fail, for sure, and in retrospect they may wish they'd paid Edmunds or signed someone else, but it seems foolish to me to decide today that their plan won't work.

For the record, if anyone is reading this other than you and I, I've apologized to NewEra for my outburst. It was out of line. There's stuff to talk, and yelling about it doesn't help. But I'll try again. Why is it that I should be discussing what I've seen to date? Or put another way, why can't you see that I AM discussing what I've seen to date. I've seen Beane and McDermott operate for five years, and at this stage of the team's development, one thing I've seen is that Beane always acquires someone to try to fill a hole. I've seen that, over and over. And the fact that he didn't do much of anything to get a middle linebacker to replace Edmunds tells me that he didn't think he had a hole there. That, in turn tells me that he thinks Bernard or Dodson is good enough to give them what they need at the position. That's what I conclude from what I've seen them do. So, when you asked me (I think it was you) what it was that I've seen that makes me think Bernard might be the answer at middle linebacker, I told you exactly that. What I've seen is how McDermott and Beane have reacted to what you and I thought was a hole in the lineup, and that suggests to me that they believe the guy they need. You seem to be saying that the only discussion you're willing to accept is a discussion based on observations of his play, data about his size or weight, and statistics. That says you're not willing to discuss the possibility that Beane and McDermott know some things that you don't. In fact, I'm interested in that possibility, and I think it's worth discussing. Why do I have to be limited to discussing only the facts that you want to discuss. Now, as I've said over and over, I don't have any idea whether Bernard can do it. And I'm not saying that we should have undying faith in Beane and McDermott or that they can do no wrong. But I do know that Beane and McDermott are smart guys dedicated to winning a Super Bowl, so their response to the "hole" is meaningful to me. Bernard looked lost to me on the field last season, so I understand exactly what you're saying, but Beane and McDermott saw what we saw, and they watched a lot more film of those plays (and his play in practice) than you and I, so I think there's a real possibility that the conclusion that you and I reach having watched Bernard play is simply wrong. Once again, I apologize for being so rude.

I'm not saying I'm right. I've never said I know I'm right. But NewEra's argument is that there is NOTHING worth talking about except Bernard's historical NFL performance. He keeps saying that's all there is to talk about. That's simply not true. There are other things to talk about. It's like he's trying to win an argument by simply refusing to consider the points other people make. Max Fischer said something different than I've been saying. He said, in direct response to NewEra, that the data set that NewEra is too small, and all came from the first half of the season. Legitimate argument. NewEra's response: The only thing that is relevant is what Bernard put on tape last fall. As I pointed out, there is plenty of evidence that McBeane simply don't agree with NewEra. NewEra never explains why, if McBeane actually think that Bernard is good enough to play the position, McBeane are wrong. He doesn't argue the point. He just says his opinion is that Bernard is not the guy based on blah, blah, blah.

We understand that you don't have confidence in Bernard because, as you've made clear in this post, all YOU can discuss is what you've seen to date. That's obvious from your opinion. But in the post I responded to you said, "All WE can discuss is what we’ve seen to date." Emphasis added by me. That's completely different. That's dismissive of the fact that many people here think there's more that's worth discussing. In my case, I think it's relevant that McDermott and Beane seem to have a view of Bernard that's based on more than the plays you saw on television last season. Your response suggests that is irrelevant. Max Fischer says that it's important to note that we have a very small sample of actual live game plays to analyze, and we have no way to form a good judgment until his has put more plays on film (and by the way, until we see how much a year's experience, working out, and coaching may have improved his play). Your response was "All WE can discuss is what we’ve seen to date." And yet you argue self-righteously, as though everyone else's opinion is somehow incorrect because you don't want to consider any possibility other than the guy is as bad as you think he his based solely on plays you watched last season on television. When you do that, it's not a discussion. And it's disrespectful to suggest that others somehow aren't discussing this in good faith. Please.

That's just not correct. You can't just dismiss his point of view, and mine, by saying that the only thing we can discuss is what he's done to date. I, for example, have a completely rational explanation of why Bernard might do just fine. I just posted it. The explanation is that amateur analysis of limited play by Bernard last year may simply not be as good as professional analysis by multiple people, many of whom have been doing nothing but analyzing talent and teaching football for 20 years or more. I actually have a lot of confidence in that point of view, because I don't believe that McBeane would have done nothing about getting high quality linebacker talent if they thought they needed it.

As I've often said, what I do a lot of time is observe McBeane and try to figure out why they do the things they do. I, like a lot of people, was puzzled why Beane didn't use assets (either draft picks or money) to get someone who looked like a quality replacement for Edmunds. I concluded that two things were likely: 1. That McBeane believe that the position doesn't require top-end talent, and 2. that they already had the guy or guys on the roster that they needed. That would explain why they waited until the third round to take a linebacker. So, even though I, like a lot of people, didn't see anything last season that made me have confidence in Bernard or Dodson, I think it's likely that McBeane did see things that gave them that confidence. Either we're right or McBeane are right. McBeane are pretty smart guys, and they know a lot more about football than I do, so I think there's actually a good chance that they're right and that Bernard can do what he needs to do in the middle. And as a lot of people have been saying, Kirksey's been good but never great, he's had injury problems and he's getting older. So, maybe all that's happened is Dodson lost the competition with Bernard so badly that McBeane decided they needed a better backup than Dodson. That would mean that Beane didn't sign Kirksey to start; he just wanted a vet backup who is better than Klein, and Kirksey would certainly seem to be that. What I meant by post was that for these reasons, it's quite possible that Bernard is and will be the starter for the entire season, and not be a liability. And, as I think about it, Williams may over time be the guy to back up both Milano and Bernard. Bottom line is that there's a good chance that a lot of people here, including me, have been worrying about what to do at linebacker because we just don't understand football as well as McBeane.

It's always possible that Bernard will play well enough that McDermott doesn't want to make a change.

Ah. Thanks. McDermott apparently said the obligatory nice things about Bernard. "He's our #1, we're excited, etc." Maybe it's true, or maybe it's true only until Kirksey can plan.

I thought Joe Namath was coming back.

Not running three safeties if Hyde isn't available.

Why was Bernard expected? Was Dodson so bad that anyone who was healthy would get the start ahead of him? Did I miss an announcement? Or was it just your expectation? I thought the position was still an open competition. And, I agree, I think Kirksey will play as soon as he is healthy and has learned the job.

Are you in the starting lineup for the weekend?

That's what I understand, too. They have my money for Sunday Ticket and they aren't giving it back, but I haven't tried it yet. It's nice that I'll have all day Sunday to figure out how it works, without having to worry that somehow I can't do it and miss the Bills. I also bought YouTubeTV, but after playing it with it for half an hour, I decided that I didn't want to upset our whole TV viewing habits, and I canceled YouTubeTV. We're going to live and die, literally, with cable.

I know one person who DOESN'T think NFL football on Labor Day weekend would be a good thing: The guy who runs the NCAA. If you're like me, you're football starved, waiting for the NFL, and you watched about eight hours of college football this weekend because that's all there was. In the process, the announcers told me about all the good teams, the good matchups, etc. The result will be that might get me to watch a few games. If the NFL had been on, I wouldn't have seen Coach Prime.

No idea what to expect. This team could be on top of the league, to open the season or to end it. Given how competitive the league is, it could miss the playoffs (but I don't expect that). I no longer believe I actually have any ability to foresee what's coming. Just going to live it as it happens.

I'm just so ready for this season to begin. Anxious.

I just wanted to say that this really is a great place for Bills fans to come and talk football from our perspective. A lot of people come here and share ideas about various things, and that's a nice opportunity for all of us. Take a look at the topics on the first page: Not a lot about the talents, the pluses and minuses of the position players because, well, it's all been said. Now, everyone is just ready for things to get going. In the meantime, lets talk about how the Cowboys are ruining football, Chad Kelly's contract, why someone is optimistic or pessimistic. It's something to talk about while we're waiting, and pretty much all of us can find something interesting in one or another these topics. In a sense, it's as though we've all been through preseason and now we're ready. There's nothing left other than wait. We're the nervous guys in the landing craft, ready to go ashore on D-Day. Just idle chatter before the battle. They did it for real; remarkable courage, and I don't mean to demean them at all. It's just that we have a similar feeling, trivial by comparison, but similar nonetheless. This forum provides that idle chatter nicely. It's like the neighborhood tavern. Virtually. Be grateful.

He calls the back-end of the Bills' schedule a seven-game death march. Yes, this. I got trashed earlier this summer when I pointed how little coverage about the Bills there was on ESPN.com and other major outlets. The reason, I said, is that the media cater to the fans and promote the big-market teams. I think the average fans around the country thought the Bills were done. Now that the writers who actually know something about the game are making their predictions, the Bills are in everyone's discussions, because people who know the game know that the Bills have the roster and the coaching to compete for the trophy.

This is great. Thank you. It fills in the blanks. I recall having heard McDermott talk about the bye week that way. But the real answer is analytics. They have people (soon to be just AI) analyzing formations, plays, defenses, results, etc. on a regular basis and generating reports about tendencies, success rates, defensive trends, etc. That's the piece that's missing from the article, or just lost in the details of the week. I'm sure Dorsey is a getting a weekly report about last week's game, monthly and year-to-date trends in all of that stuff. He knows what has worked, what hasn't worked, and what defenses are doing to the Bills. And if he's any good, when he sees what's working, he'll ask himself and McDermott what defenses are likely to do to stop it, so Dorsey can try to create something that will keep him ahead of the defenses. (That's what drives you nuts about the Chief's red zone offense. As defenses begin to plan for whatever wrinkle they're using, like that shovel pass to Kelce, Reid is planning what play will work to confound the defensive adjustment.) The complexity these guys are mired in as they plan week-to-week is amazing. Thanks. It's all just information that's in the mix as the coaches develop their plans from week to week. lt's just Bado telling you that he already knew what the article said. He's really smart. But his final point is correct. It's an ultra-competitive labor of love industry.