Jump to content

The Great Tremaine Edmunds Debate


JohnNord

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

Excellent point.  It all depends on what McBeane think of him now.  If they think he's the guy for the future, they extend him. I'd they aren't sure, they let him play year four without exercising, and then decide. 

 

With Allen they will extend.  With Lawson they didn't exercise the option.  Those are probably the two choices. 

His point looks to be wrong 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NewEra said:

 

So which is it?  One guy says he only counts for 1 pro bowl.  One guy says it’s 2.  Links anyone?  It’s a big difference 

 

 

I'm not certain but I wouldn't consider $2.2M a big difference at all when it comes to committing to a fully guaranteed salary 2 years down the road for an off-ball LB.

 

That's what's changed with this 5th year option.........the NFLPA doesn't get much respect but they certainly have succeeded in marginalizing the value of 5th year options.

 

If they are worth picking up the option they are worth that much and 50% guaranteed on a 5 year deal.

 

I don't think I'd put Edmunds in that category.......whether it was $13M or $15M per year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, NewEra said:

You and @Rock-A-Bye Beasleysaid two different things.

 

According to him, it’s 1

 

according to you, it’s 2

 

It's 2 pro bowls (to clarify he did replace Hightower last year so was an actual participant).

 

But as has been noted, being named as an alternate on the first affects the the compensation.

 

Probably why there was some confusion.

 

 

 

 

Edited by WideNine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NewEra said:

His point looks to be wrong 

 

 

I was making the same point the past month when I assumed it was a $2M difference between the option and the tag.

 

Plus, then you are competing against that $12.7 gtd for just one season if you are trying to get a reasonable extension done.

 

People are free to disagree but here are two simple reasons to not unnecessarily guarantee top dollar two years down the line to an off-ball LB when you don't need to:

 

Sam Cowart

 

Takeo Spikes

 

One injury and overnight they went from All Pro to All JAG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

I was making the same point the past month when I assumed it was a $2M difference between the option and the tag.

 

Plus, then you are competing against that $12.7 gtd for just one season if you are trying to get a reasonable extension done.

 

People are free to disagree but here are two simple reasons to not unnecessarily guarantee top dollar two years down the line to an off-ball LB when you don't need to:

 

Sam Cowart

 

Takeo Spikes

 

One injury and overnight they went from All Pro to All JAG.

The full guarantee in year five is what makes me very leery of picking up that option. He's a decent player with physical upside, but he's replaceable.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

I was making the same point the past month when I assumed it was a $2M difference between the option and the tag.

 

Plus, then you are competing against that $12.7 gtd for just one season if you are trying to get a reasonable extension done.

 

People are free to disagree but here are two simple reasons to not unnecessarily guarantee top dollar two years down the line to an off-ball LB when you don't need to:

 

Sam Cowart

 

Takeo Spikes

 

One injury and overnight they went from All Pro to All JAG.

I was just talking about the specifics of how his “pro bowl” accolades affect his 5th year option.  
 

like I’ve said in the past, I agree with you regarding Edmunds 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, DCbillsfan said:

Listening to Beane today, I came away with the impression they won't be picking up Edmunds 5th year.  Too much uncertainty about the cap for 2022.

Then they would be wise to trade him during the draft so they could get something for him...that’s what Belichick would do, if he knew he wasn’t going to resign a guy...let’s see if Beane has the same fortitude...

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, JaCrispy said:

Then they would be wise to trade him during the draft so they could get something for him...that’s what Belichick would do, if he knew he wasn’t going to resign a guy...let’s see if Beane has the same fortitude...

Quick.  Name all the 22 year olds that call the defensive plays that Bellichick traded.  The Edmunds bashing on this board is beyond ridiculous.  If he is so replaceable, why name make a list of guys that could replace him for less money?

 

The middle of our Dline was a mess for most of the season last year.  Edmunds was injured as was his partner Milano.  The Pro Bowl is not what it used to be but he still made it with all of those things factored in.  He’ll be 24 during the 5th year option.  But you know, he is a real big personality so we should ditch him.  What a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Quick.  Name all the 22 year olds that call the defensive plays that Bellichick traded.  The Edmunds bashing on this board is beyond ridiculous.  If he is so replaceable, why name make a list of guys that could replace him for less money?

 

The middle of our Dline was a mess for most of the season last year.  Edmunds was injured as was his partner Milano.  The Pro Bowl is not what it used to be but he still made it with all of those things factored in.  He’ll be 24 during the 5th year option.  But you know, he is a real big personality so we should ditch him.  What a joke.

I wasn’t bashing Edmunds in that particular post...I simply suggested that if they knew Edmunds was going to be out of the their price range, they should seriously consider getting value for him while they still can- which is a perfectly reasonable suggestion...

 

And it’s no secret that Belichick has been trading away top talent for years when he wasn’t willing to pay...just the nature of the business...

 

I understand that sometimes conditions aren’t ideal for players (ie Sam Darnold). Sometimes that’s the way the cookie crumbles...time rolls on...However, the argument about Edmunds being 22 seems like a lazy one to me...the other side of the argument is: What 22 year old player do you know that has 3 years NFL experience?

Edited by JaCrispy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

I wasn’t bashing Edmunds in that particular post...I simply suggested that if they knew Edmunds was going to be out of the their price range, they should seriously consider getting value for him while they still can- which is a perfectly reasonable suggestion...

 

And it’s no secret that Belichick has been trading away top talent for years when he wasn’t willing to pay...just the nature of the business...

 

I understand that sometimes conditions aren’t ideal for players...sometimes that’s the way the cookie crumbles...time rolls on...However, the argument about Edmunds being 22 seems like a lazy one to me...the other side of the argument is: What 22 year old player do you know that has 3 years NFL experience?

 

Another aspect to middle linebacker play that I forgot to mention with Edmunds is his height (6'5") and how that may play into the difficulty keeping the pad-level low to stick your tackles and shed blocks.

 

A recent article featuring NFL scout commentary on this year's draft prospects regarding a LB prospect reminded me of this.

 

 

"At 6-4 trying to play inside linebacker, it will be hard to get his pads down, and he’s not gonna run around people like he’s in Conference USA.

 

The way the league’s going now, the best middle linebackers, Devin White, Roquan Smith, Devin Bush, Pat Queen, Lavonte David, are all like 6 feet or shorter, and it’s such a space game now."

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

I wasn’t bashing Edmunds in that particular post...I simply suggested that if they knew Edmunds was going to be out of the their price range, they should seriously consider getting value for him while they still can- which is a perfectly reasonable suggestion...

 

And it’s no secret that Belichick has been trading away top talent for years when he wasn’t willing to pay...just the nature of the business...

 

I understand that sometimes conditions aren’t ideal for players (ie Sam Darnold). Sometimes that’s the way the cookie crumbles...time rolls on...However, the argument about Edmunds being 22 seems like a lazy one to me...the other side of the argument is: What 22 year old player do you know that has 3 years NFL experience?

Jettisoning your defensive play calling pro bowl rookie contract MLB right before a season in which you plan on contending for a championship is perfectly reasonable?

  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WideNine said:

 

Another aspect to middle linebacker play that I forgot to mention with Edmunds is his height (6'5") and how that may play into the difficulty keeping the pad-level low to stick your tackles and shed blocks.

 

A recent article featuring NFL scout commentary on this year's draft prospects regarding a LB prospect reminded me of this.

 

 

"At 6-4 trying to play inside linebacker, it will be hard to get his pads down, and he’s not gonna run around people like he’s in Conference USA.

 

The way the league’s going now, the best middle linebackers, Devin White, Roquan Smith, Devin Bush, Pat Queen, Lavonte David, are all like 6 feet or shorter, and it’s such a space game now."

 

 

Excellent points! 👍

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Jettisoning your defensive play calling pro bowl rookie contract MLB right before a season in which you plan on contending for a championship is perfectly reasonable?

Only if you can get value in return...the return has to be enticing enough (ie I would be cool with two 2nd round picks, or a bottom 1st rounder if we can get it).

 

Only foundational pieces, like Josh and Tre, are off limits...everyone else should be fair game...TE has not earned the title of foundational player to me....and if memory serves, we spent a 1st and 3rd rounder on him- so it would be wise to try and recoup some of that, if possible (if we are not planning on resigning him), so that it’s not a total waste...just my opinion.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2021 at 12:24 PM, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

 

Seeing that the 5th year option value with 2 Pro Bowls = the franchise tag value.............I think it would be illogical for the Bills to pick up the option.

 

That's a huge amount of injury risk for what would only amount to a "vote of confidence".

 

Just let him play it out..........dangle the UFA carrot.........and make him EARN that $15M 2022 tag rather than just picking up the option for $15M now.

 

 


 

My big disagreement with this is if you use the 5th year option - you get him this year and then next year at mid 12 versus the Franchise tag of 15 for next year.  You save about 3 million for a small risk.

 

Additionally that gives you the franchise tag for 2023 at the lowest price - gives the Bills some leverage in negotiations and potentially 3 years.

 

If the Bills forgo the 5th year option and then use the franchise tag - they pay more and they are not going to franchise him more than once as the increase puts him as a top paid LB in the NFL level.  
 

My gut feeling is they are working with Tremaine and are hoping to sign him to an extension below the 5th year option level - that gives him money up front now and extends his rookie deal, but keeps his price tag a little lower.  They may even use the 5th year option, but if they do not pick it up - I think it is because they have the frameworks of a deal.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:


 

My big disagreement with this is if you use the 5th year option - you get him this year and then next year at mid 12 versus the Franchise tag of 15 for next year.  You save about 3 million for a small risk.

 

Additionally that gives you the franchise tag for 2023 at the lowest price - gives the Bills some leverage in negotiations and potentially 3 years.

 

If the Bills forgo the 5th year option and then use the franchise tag - they pay more and they are not going to franchise him more than once as the increase puts him as a top paid LB in the NFL level.  
 

My gut feeling is they are working with Tremaine and are hoping to sign him to an extension below the 5th year option level - that gives him money up front now and extends his rookie deal, but keeps his price tag a little lower.  They may even use the 5th year option, but if they do not pick it up - I think it is because they have the frameworks of a deal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If he doesn't get credit for the 2 pro bowls then his number is $12.7M.........if he does it's the franchise tag figure of $14.9M.

 

$2.2M difference.

 

Like I said........for $2M difference it's a risk not worth taking a year and a half before the start of that season...........MLB's take a beating...........forget the catastrophic Cowart and Spikes examples.........see CJ Mosely for a much more recent example.    

 

I'm also a fan of dangling the free agency carrot for inconsistent or underachieving players to see what they've got and aren't yet showing for one reason or another.

 

Either way I don't think either of those cap hits in 2022 would be tenable.    You may be right about them working on an extension.....but I don't think they are as sold on him being a great MLB as some think.    McD made the rare exception of saying that Edmunds had to specifically play better at mid-season last year.   That was not insignificant.......he rarely even answers a question like that with a direct answer.    They know he has left something to be desired at this point.      

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

If he doesn't get credit for the 2 pro bowls then his number is $12.7M.........if he does it's the franchise tag figure of $14.9M.

 

$2.2M difference.

 

Like I said........for $2M difference it's a risk not worth taking a year and a half before the start of that season...........MLB's take a beating...........forget the catastrophic Cowart and Spikes examples.........see CJ Mosely for a much more recent example.    

 

I'm also a fan of dangling the free agency carrot for inconsistent or underachieving players to see what they've got and aren't yet showing for one reason or another.

 

Either way I don't think either of those cap hits in 2022 would be tenable.    You may be right about them working on an extension.....but I don't think they are as sold on him being a great MLB as some think.    McD made the rare exception of saying that Edmunds had to specifically play better at mid-season last year.   That was not insignificant.......he rarely even answers a question like that with a direct answer.    They know he has left something to be desired at this point.      


 

He has been to 2 ProBowls, but as he was an alternate that does not count for 5th year option. So the difference will be 2.2 million.

 

I disagree as I think 2.2 million (or essentially 2 nearly 3 vet minimum players) is a big deal.

 

I do agree the 12.7 might not be tenable, but then the 15 million for the tag would be really untenable.  And yes you take a small risk, but an injury can occur any time - ask Feliciano that popped his pec.  It is a small risk for what I think is significant money.

 

I will wait and let them determine how they want to proceed.  Edmunds was hurt early in the season and struggled when Milano was out and the Bills were trying to figure out the LB situation.  Later in the year - with Milano back and his shoulder better - he played well enough and the defense as a unit played way better.

 

He has a long way to go, but he is a top end LB and although like RB - MLB is a lesser valued position - his role is not as simple to fill as we saw when Milano was out.  I don’t think he is a great MLB, but I don’t think you easily find a replacement level - which is why this draft will be interesting.  Do they draft another young LB to put some pressure or not.

 

In the end the actions will speak to how they really feel.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2021 at 8:59 PM, BarleyNY said:


FWIW I googled “tackles per snap” and got this.


Edmunds has a tackle per snap rate of 8%, which is 5th on the team.  Milano leads with 10%.  Adams, Klein and Poyer are ahead of him too.  It’s not terrible, but for a MLB it’s not really that good either.  Edmunds played 91% of the defensive snaps so he’s a workhorse with a lot of opportunity to accumulate tackles.

 

I don’t see many here saying he’s awful, just that he hasn’t come close to earning the lucrative second contract expected from the team that drafted him 16th overall.  He’s got this season to prove himself or I expect the Bills to move on.  I really don’t see him being worth $12.7M for his fifth year option either.  That would be fully guaranteed and the decision is due by 5/3. 

 

Just saying,  I don't think it's reasonable to compare 1) a player who spent the previous season on another team playing a different schedule (Adams) 2) players who didn't take many full-game snaps last year (Klein and Milano).  Until Week 16, Cookie was only playing 20, 30, 50% of the snaps - fresh fast feet.  When Milano was on IR, Klein had a 3-game stretch of playing >90% of the snaps, but otherwise ditto - 40-50% of the snaps.

 

I also wonder if that's accepted as a great metric for meaningful LB play?  I'm not familiar with that site and couldn't instantly figure out how to make it do what I wanted, but if you look up some of the league's top MLB how do their tackles/snap compare?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with this entire thread is that people keep using an old classification for a newer defensive scheme.  McD’s defense does not use a tradItional MLB that plays right behind the line and primarily plays the run.  We play Edmunds and Milano, and they play then because they are each fast and can cover a lot of ground.  If your idea of a MLB is like a Butkus, you will never be happy with Edmunds.  He is not that guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...