I’d like to advocate some opinions on contracts, especially in regards to Edmunds’.

[Tipster19]

Reflecting on what happened to the Bills’ players’ contracts and how they were structured. I was of the opinion that Beane was a wizard when it came to contracts but I’m not so sure right now. Knowing what the salary cap has been I’m a bit surprised by how much the checks and balances were a bit out of whack, finding ourselves upside down and over budget by a considerable amount I might add. If I recall correctly there’s been a few players that Beane put on a 1 year  contract on and when the time came to re-sign them they had outplayed their contract, hence to re-up them the cost escalated considerably. I’m thinking it would be better to sign players to a contract that consists of multiple years (3 yes?) with funny money built into the backend of it so it would allow the Bills to have an out of it after a year or 2. 
 

I referenced Tremaine Edmunds’ contract in the title of this thread and what I’d like some opinions on is due to Edmunds being so young (19 yrs old) when we drafted him. The Bills built a contract that in hindsight wasn’t going to favor the Bills in the end. Being only 19, getting 5 years of NFL experience when the contract expires leaves Edmunds holding all the cards. What I’m thinking is that when a drafted player is ultra young then it would serve the administration better to recontract  such player by no later than year 3 before the player has more time to validate himself, hence his value/cost skyrockets. In Edmunds’ case I realize he never blew anyone away with his play so the Bills waited until the next year and then again waited again the following year after that in which he finally did play good and then became unaffordable for the Bills. If the Bills still couldn’t get an accurate bead on him after his 3rd year then when the Bills exercised the 5th year option with him then they should have traded him by the end of the 4th year or even extend him by that time. Allowing Edmunds to finish his contract left the Bills high and dry imo. If anyone wants to say that well at least the Bills will get a compensatory pick for him is very disappointing compensation if you ask me. Drafting 1st rders and just ending up with a compensatory pick is poor management imo.

[Chaos]

4 minutes ago, Tipster19 said:

Reflecting on what happened to the Bills’ players’ contracts and how they were structured. I was of the opinion that Beane was a wizard when it came to contracts but I’m not so sure right now. Knowing what the salary cap has been I’m a bit surprised by how much the checks and balances were a bit out of whack, finding ourselves upside down and over budget by a considerable amount I might add. If I recall correctly there’s been a few players that Beane put on a 1 year  contract on and when the time came to re-sign them they had outplayed their contract, hence to re-up them the cost escalated considerably. I’m thinking it would be better to sign players to a contract that consists of multiple years (3 yes?) with funny money built into the backend of it so it would allow the Bills to have an out of it after a year or 2. 
 

I referenced Tremaine Edmunds’ contract in the title of this thread and what I’d like some opinions on is due to Edmunds being so young (19 yrs old) when we drafted him. The Bills built a contract that in hindsight wasn’t going to favor the Bills in the end. Being only 19, getting 5 years of NFL experience when the contract expires leaves Edmunds holding all the cards. What I’m thinking is that when a drafted player is ultra young then it would serve the administration better to recontract  such player by no later than year 3 before the player has more time to validate himself, hence his value/cost skyrockets. In Edmunds’ case I realize he never blew anyone away with his play so the Bills waited until the next year and then again waited again the following year after that in which he finally did play good and then became unaffordable for the Bills. If the Bills still couldn’t get an accurate bead on him after his 3rd year then when the Bills exercised the 5th year option with him then they should have traded him by the end of the 4th year or even extend him by that time. Allowing Edmunds to finish his contract left the Bills high and dry imo. If anyone wants to say that well at least the Bills will get a compensatory pick for him is very disappointing compensation if you ask me. Drafting 1st rders and just ending up with a compensatory pick is poor management imo.

Alternatively, do not draft 19 year olds. 

[PrimeTime101]

2 minutes ago, Tipster19 said:

Reflecting on what happened to the Bills’ players’ contracts and how they were structured. I was of the opinion that Beane was a wizard when it came to contracts but I’m not so sure right now. Knowing what the salary cap has been I’m a bit surprised by how much the checks and balances were a bit out of whack, finding ourselves upside down and over budget by a considerable amount I might add. If I recall correctly there’s been a few players that Beane put on a 1 year  contract on and when the time came to re-sign them they had outplayed their contract, hence to re-up them the cost escalated considerably. I’m thinking it would be better to sign players to a contract that consists of multiple years (3 yes?) with funny money built into the backend of it so it would allow the Bills to have an out of it after a year or 2. 
 

I referenced Tremaine Edmunds’ contract in the title of this thread and what I’d like some opinions on is due to Edmunds being so young (19 yrs old) when we drafted him. The Bills built a contract that in hindsight wasn’t going to favor the Bills in the end. Being only 19, getting 5 years of NFL experience when the contract expires leaves Edmunds holding all the cards. What I’m thinking is that when a drafted player is ultra young then it would serve the administration better to recontract  such player by no later than year 3 before the player has more time to validate himself, hence his value/cost skyrockets. In Edmunds’ case I realize he never blew anyone away with his play so the Bills waited until the next year and then again waited again the following year after that in which he finally did play good and then became unaffordable for the Bills. If the Bills still couldn’t get an accurate bead on him after his 3rd year then when the Bills exercised the 5th year option with him then they should have traded him by the end of the 4th year or even extend him by that time. Allowing Edmunds to finish his contract left the Bills high and dry imo. If anyone wants to say that well at least the Bills will get a compensatory pick for him is very disappointing compensation if you ask me. Drafting 1st rders and just ending up with a compensatory pick is poor management imo.

Last year and this time of year, I got roasted for suggesting extending Edmund's contract then because IF Edmunds had a really good year... we would not of been able to afford him. Imagine that,,, Now he had one of his best seasons, his contract numbers go up and the same people regret not extending him last year...  Just annoying to me and that's why this topic gets my anger face... 

[John from Riverside]

1 minute ago, PrimeTime101 said:

Last year and this time of year, I got roasted for suggesting extending Edmund's contract then because IF Edmunds had a really good year... we would not of been able to afford him. Imagine that,,, Now he had one of his best seasons, his contract numbers go up and the same people regret not extending him last year...  Just annoying to me and that's why this topic gets my anger face... 

I don’t know this for certain, so I’m really asking did anybody see anything that Edmonds was willing to be extended?

 

Because of his age, he’s going to get two solid contracts

[MrEpsYtown]

My stance is that they could have extended or re-signed him. They chose not to. To me, they didn’t value him at that number the Bears gave him. Doesn’t mean he sucks. 
 

Is it a miss because you did not re-sign him? No, because you get pretty cheap production for 4 years and a reasonable 5th year option. 
 

To me, you have to be careful which positions you choose in the 1st round of the draft. Fifth year option for OL is 13 million or something. Really want to pay a guard 13 million or a RT 13 milion? LB round one is also very tricky. 

 

The bottom line is that the Bills did not get the player they thought they were getting. He was very good, but not the impact they thought they would get. If he were the second coming of Urlacher or Keuchly, they would have extended him. They were shooting for the moon and fell short. I don’t fault the thought process, but they forced that draft pick and didn’t need to. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by MrEpsYtown

[PrimeTime101]

1 minute ago, John from Riverside said:

I don’t know this for certain, so I’m really asking did anybody see anything that Edmonds was willing to be extended?

 

Because of his age, he’s going to get two solid contracts

Your going about this wrong River... Did you see anything that would suggest he did NOT want to be extended? To that answer no.   and to your original answer? Why would he not want to be extended? players want to get paid.

[John from Riverside]

1 minute ago, PrimeTime101 said:

Your going about this wrong River... Did you see anything that would suggest he did NOT want to be extended? To that answer no.   and to your original answer? Why would he not want to be extended? players want to get paid.

Perhaps the amount of money that they were talking about at extension time wasn’t agreeable once again I don’t know I’m just spit balling here. It’s really not like Brandon to not resign his own players.

[Brand J]

I advocated for trading him when Lloyd was available at the Bills pick and grabbing him as a replacement and then getting a CB in the 2nd. A trade could’ve netted Elam or Pickens at the top of the 2nd, but I understand why it probably wasn’t a consideration given the expectations the team had. I’d be a more shrewd (cutthroat) GM though. 

[PrimeTime101]

1 minute ago, John from Riverside said:

Perhaps the amount of money that they were talking about at extension time wasn’t agreeable once again I don’t know I’m just spit balling here. It’s really not like Brandon to not resign his own players.

it was said specifically that there were no contract extension talks other than picking up his 5th year. 

[QLBillsFan]

When they signed Milano I think they made the call on who they thought was both more impactful and affordable. Agree they could have extended earlier and likely for less than the $18m he got. But that’s assuming he was open to it. And at that juncture I don’t think he was worth it. Having over $30m at the position in the Bills D given the current NFL is not what BB wanted. If we had to choose I’m fine with Milano. 

[PrimeTime101]

Just now, QLBillsFan said:

When they signed Milano I think they made the call on who they thought was both more impactful and affordable. Agree they could have extended earlier and likely for less than the $18m he got. But that’s assuming he was open to it. And at that juncture I don’t think he was worth it. Having over $30m at the position in the Bills D given the current NFL is not what BB wanted. If we had to choose I’m fine with Milano. 

There are just some things we cant do without an Edmunds.. Just putting that out there. Cover 1 also made this very clear that without an Edmunds our scheme will change... though I think most of us are just fine with that fact as well

[jkeerie]

7 minutes ago, MrEpsYtown said:

My stance is that they could have extended or re-signed him. They chose not to. To me, they didn’t value him at that number the Bears gave him. Doesn’t mean he sucks. 
 

Is it a miss because you did not re-sign him? No, because you get pretty cheap production for 4 years and a reasonable 5th year option. 
 

To me, you have to be careful which positions you choose in the 1st round of the draft. Fifth year option for OL is 13 million or something. Really want to pay a guard 13 million or a RT 13 milion? LB round one is also very tricky. 

 

The bottom line is that the Bills did not get the player they thought they were getting. He was very good, but not the impact they thought they would get. If he were the second coming of Urlacher or Keuchly, they would have extended him. They were shooting for the moon and fell short. I don’t fault the thought process, but they forced that draft pick and didn’t need to. 

I think you also have to take into consideration that Milano's excellent play...and having to pay him in order to keep hin...played into the Bills inability to retain Edmunds.  And in the long run, if you had to choose between Milano and Edmunds, the vast majority of Bills fans would have chosen Milano...which is how it played out.

[QLBillsFan]

That is certainly possible. McD has said he wants a nastier D. That sounds good but it will be interesting in seeing what they do at LB. Is it FA ? Not a lot of talent fits remaining if any. Or via draft Sanders, Campbell, Henley fit that skill set. 

[PrimeTime101]

3 minutes ago, jkeerie said:

I think you also have to take into consideration that Milano's excellent play...and having to pay him in order to keep hin...played into the Bills inability to retain Edmunds.  And in the long run, if you had to choose between Milano and Edmunds, the vast majority of Bills fans would have chosen Milano...which is how it played out.

I am really tired of hearing this narrative that because Milano played great that they chose Milano over Edmunds... Extending Milana was cheaper than keeping Edmunds... THATS why they Edmunds is gone. 

 

My personal opinion is that Edmunds looked bad at times do to scheme more then play. The old theory is... put the players in the right place to do well... And I thought at times, Edmunds was way out of position and because of this... it allowed Edmunds to bite on plays he never would of bit on. Scheme screwed this team this year... Middle of the field was open what felt like all year long and we never adjusted... Cinci saw it and took advantage.

[Orlando Tim]

Edmunds knew he was gonna get $15 million a year from FA this year at this point last year and I doubt the bills offered that kind of money. Secondly as for the draft you always pick the best player you can because you won't hit on everyone of them, do not worry about that second contract. 

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, Tipster19 said:

If anyone wants to say that well at least the Bills will get a compensatory pick for him is very disappointing compensation if you ask me. Drafting 1st rders and just ending up with a compensatory pick is poor management imo.

We're not even going to get that.  It was a series of unfortunate events that cost us Edmunds.  It was the first tough free agent loss under Allen's contract and it won't be the last.  It's our new reality.  Deal with it.

[John from Riverside]

1 hour ago, Tipster19 said:

Reflecting on what happened to the Bills’ players’ contracts and how they were structured. I was of the opinion that Beane was a wizard when it came to contracts but I’m not so sure right now. Knowing what the salary cap has been I’m a bit surprised by how much the checks and balances were a bit out of whack, finding ourselves upside down and over budget by a considerable amount I might add. If I recall correctly there’s been a few players that Beane put on a 1 year  contract on and when the time came to re-sign them they had outplayed their contract, hence to re-up them the cost escalated considerably. I’m thinking it would be better to sign players to a contract that consists of multiple years (3 yes?) with funny money built into the backend of it so it would allow the Bills to have an out of it after a year or 2. 
 

I referenced Tremaine Edmunds’ contract in the title of this thread and what I’d like some opinions on is due to Edmunds being so young (19 yrs old) when we drafted him. The Bills built a contract that in hindsight wasn’t going to favor the Bills in the end. Being only 19, getting 5 years of NFL experience when the contract expires leaves Edmunds holding all the cards. What I’m thinking is that when a drafted player is ultra young then it would serve the administration better to recontract  such player by no later than year 3 before the player has more time to validate himself, hence his value/cost skyrockets. In Edmunds’ case I realize he never blew anyone away with his play so the Bills waited until the next year and then again waited again the following year after that in which he finally did play good and then became unaffordable for the Bills. If the Bills still couldn’t get an accurate bead on him after his 3rd year then when the Bills exercised the 5th year option with him then they should have traded him by the end of the 4th year or even extend him by that time. Allowing Edmunds to finish his contract left the Bills high and dry imo. If anyone wants to say that well at least the Bills will get a compensatory pick for him is very disappointing compensation if you ask me. Drafting 1st rders and just ending up with a compensatory pick is poor management imo.

Sir do you not watch other teams with franchise QBs around the league do you know the ones that wind and sea players coming and going?
 

This is the norm when you live in this world of being a successful franchise

Edited March 17, 2023 by John from Riverside

[jkeerie]

1 hour ago, PrimeTime101 said:

I am really tired of hearing this narrative that because Milano played great that they chose Milano over Edmunds... Extending Milana was cheaper than keeping Edmunds... THATS why they Edmunds is gone. 

 

My personal opinion is that Edmunds looked bad at times do to scheme more then play. The old theory is... put the players in the right place to do well... And I thought at times, Edmunds was way out of position and because of this... it allowed Edmunds to bite on plays he never would of bit on. Scheme screwed this team this year... Middle of the field was open what felt like all year long and we never adjusted... Cinci saw it and took advantage.

It may have been cheaper but it wasn't a bargain basement contract.  Milano's contract was as high as it was because of his excellent play.  That's what he earned and commanded.  The Bills couldn't afford to keep both.

 

As to Edmunds play, I agree there were times he looked out of position.  Many on this board thought he was ill-suited for MLB and would have been better outside.  You may be right that the scheme did Edmunds no favors.   It will be interesting to see how Chicago uses him.

[pennstate10]

2 hours ago, Tipster19 said:

Reflecting on what happened to the Bills’ players’ contracts and how they were structured. I was of the opinion that Beane was a wizard when it came to contracts but I’m not so sure right now. Knowing what the salary cap has been I’m a bit surprised by how much the checks and balances were a bit out of whack, finding ourselves upside down and over budget by a considerable amount I might add. If I recall correctly there’s been a few players that Beane put on a 1 year  contract on and when the time came to re-sign them they had outplayed their contract, hence to re-up them the cost escalated considerably. I’m thinking it would be better to sign players to a contract that consists of multiple years (3 yes?) with funny money built into the backend of it so it would allow the Bills to have an out of it after a year or 2. 
 

I referenced Tremaine Edmunds’ contract in the title of this thread and what I’d like some opinions on is due to Edmunds being so young (19 yrs old) when we drafted him. The Bills built a contract that in hindsight wasn’t going to favor the Bills in the end. Being only 19, getting 5 years of NFL experience when the contract expires leaves Edmunds holding all the cards. What I’m thinking is that when a drafted player is ultra young then it would serve the administration better to recontract  such player by no later than year 3 before the player has more time to validate himself, hence his value/cost skyrockets. In Edmunds’ case I realize he never blew anyone away with his play so the Bills waited until the next year and then again waited again the following year after that in which he finally did play good and then became unaffordable for the Bills. If the Bills still couldn’t get an accurate bead on him after his 3rd year then when the Bills exercised the 5th year option with him then they should have traded him by the end of the 4th year or even extend him by that time. Allowing Edmunds to finish his contract left the Bills high and dry imo. If anyone wants to say that well at least the Bills will get a compensatory pick for him is very disappointing compensation if you ask me. Drafting 1st rders and just ending up with a compensatory pick is poor management imo.

This ain’t rocket science. 
Edmunds is a good player. 
Bills wanted him back. But not at $15 million per. 
 

Whether he was 24 or 26 yo is completely irrelevant. 

[John from Riverside]

Just now, pennstate10 said:

This ain’t rocket science. 
Edmunds is a good player. 
Bills wanted him back. But not at $15 million per. 
 

Whether he was 24 or 26 yo is completely irrelevant. 

Was it 15 million a year or 18 million a year

[BeastMaster]

Get over this dude already

 

He was an ok player with freakish skills, but a low football IQ.

 

His value is overstated, and I believe we are better suited with a player that has real instincts at MLB instead of an athletic specimen.

 

 

[NewEra]

Good ol tipster thread. 

[skibum]

Once again, here we have the assumption that a GM can (a) impose his will on a player, (b) make any trade happen at the drop of a hat (and always win the trade), and (c) somehow skirt the invisible hands of the open market and get the best value and outcome in every scenario. The GM simply can't control everything. 

[Thrivefourfive]

The ballsiest move and the only right move based on how things played out the last two years was to trade him after year three. Let someone else have the headache. I don’t care the age, it’s football, and honestly it’s not that hard. He has the physical tools, but unless he can simplify his thoughts and NOT think, his greatest asset is taking up space and making the QB avoid throwing in his area. I don’t know.. that’s nice, but the Bills 100% whiffed here all things considered. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Thrivefourfive

[BillsVet]

14 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Good ol tipster thread. 

 

Yeah...start a thread with your opinion, let others debate, and then never return to engage with those who replied.

 

If you believe something enough to start a thread then have the common decency to defend your argument.  If not, I'll assume you didn't think it through much.  

 

 

[Rigotz]

The piece you’re missing here is if the player is actually good and believes in himself, he’s not going to sign a cheap long term deal when he doesn’t have to.

That plan can also backfire horrifically. What deal would you have given Edmunds 2 years ago when he had proven nothing? It’s an unnecessary risk for both the player and the GM.

 

You’re also missing some signings this year apparently as well. McGovern is very much an upside pick on a long term deal. Same with Harty. Beane is going above market in year 1 so he can potentially get a steal in the later years. That’s exactly what he did with Poyer and Hyde too.

 

I appreciate the thought you put into this, but it was a big miss.

[DrDawkinstein]

We missed on extending/re-signing him because up until his 5th/last year, he simply was not WORTHY of being extended or re-signed. Even if we could've gotten a deal a couple years ago and locked him in at $15M/year, his play on the field said even that wouldve been overpaying.

 

Unfortunately, this is as much on the player as it is on Beane, if not more so.

[PatsFanNH]

11 hours ago, Chaos said:

Alternatively, do not draft 19 year olds. 

What did he do graduate HS at 16? I mean it’s still a rule you have to be 3 years after HS to be drafted right? 

[BillsFan130]

11 hours ago, PrimeTime101 said:

it was said specifically that there were no contract extension talks other than picking up his 5th year. 

That’s interesting but I believe that. Where did you hear that out of curiosity?

[ColoradoBills]

24 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

We missed on extending/re-signing him because up until his 5th/last year, he simply was not WORTHY of being extended or re-signed. Even if we could've gotten a deal a couple years ago and locked him in at $15M/year, his play on the field said even that wouldve been overpaying.

 

Unfortunately, this is as much on the player as it is on Beane, if not more so.

 

Agree.

 

Way too many critiques based on hindsight around here.  Trading Edmunds a year or even 2 ago while the Bills were on the threshold of

a SB run would have been irresponsible.

 

I can make an argument that the Bills D scheme was due to Edmund's traits.  I can see McDermott, who just happens to have total control now,

evolving the scheme on D to a post Edmunds team.  With Poyer back, the only big change is Edmunds.  Fans here can debate McDermott's HC

qualities but he is an extremely competent DC.  I have a lot of hope he can adapt with a new D scheme.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

37 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

What did he do graduate HS at 16? I mean it’s still a rule you have to be 3 years after HS to be drafted right? 

 

He was 19 when drafted but 20 by the fall when he played here.  So i think he graduated at 17, played at VT from 17-19.  

[oldmanfan]

Edmunds had two things going against him with respect to contract, irrespective of his skills on the field:

 

1.  He was drafted the same year as Allen, and when Allen showed up big and got the big contract it was going to limit what the Bills could do with a guy in the same year.  hard to give another massive contract out in th e same time period, and this was exacerbated by paying Miller.

 

2.  Milano turned out to be an All Pro, and it's hard to sink a ton of money into two players in the same position group.

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by oldmanfan

[Tipster19]

45 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

We missed on extending/re-signing him because up until his 5th/last year, he simply was not WORTHY of being extended or re-signed. Even if we could've gotten a deal a couple years ago and locked him in at $15M/year, his play on the field said even that wouldve been overpaying.

 

Unfortunately, this is as much on the player as it is on Beane, if not more so.

Then he should have been traded. I just don’t understand why anyone would let a 1st rder run the full 5 years and not get anything out of it. Aren’t the GMs paid to know what to do?

1 hour ago, BillsVet said:

 

Yeah...start a thread with your opinion, let others debate, and then never return to engage with those who replied.

 

If you believe something enough to start a thread then have the common decency to defend your argument.  If not, I'll assume you didn't think it through much.  

 

 

Argument?? That’s the problem with this place, too many people want to argue.

 

Well, here I am. What do you want to “engage” about? Read the title, I clearly asked for opinions.

[PrimeTime101]

1 hour ago, BillsFan130 said:

That’s interesting but I believe that. Where did you hear that out of curiosity?

when they extended him. They specifically said "we will give him his 5th year and talks about contract extensions that year"

[DrDawkinstein]

15 minutes ago, Tipster19 said:

Then he should have been traded. I just don’t understand why anyone would let a 1st rder run the full 5 years and not get anything out of it. Aren’t the GMs paid to know what to do?

 

Traded to who, for what? That's a nice wish, but in reality you need a team willing to make that trade, and willing to offer something worthwhile.

 

No GM is perfect 100% of the time. The best ones hit at a rate slightly above 50% (and we have one of the better ones). Life has too many variables at play from so many different angles.

 

It's easy to sit in hindsight and bag on past decisions, but at the time, letting him play out was the best choice.

[BringBackFergy]

Edmunds was a hard hitting player for the Bills and hit with such force he single handedly caused more concussions to players than any other LB…unfortunately, the injuries he caused were to his fellow teammates. #thirdmaninontackles

[BillsVet]

21 minutes ago, Tipster19 said:

Then he should have been traded. I just don’t understand why anyone would let a 1st rder run the full 5 years and not get anything out of it. Aren’t the GMs paid to know what to do?

Argument?? That’s the problem with this place, too many people want to argue.

 

Well, here I am. What do you want to “engage” about? Read the title, I clearly asked for opinions.

 

I have observed a trend with threads you start in that you never re-enter to discuss.  It's just throw a subject out, let others debate, and then go away.  

 

The discussion and debate around Edmunds has continued ad nauseam to the point it's asinine  The team made a business decision on a player that, yes they selected high, but who provided less than ideal value at a position of lesser importance.  He was a matchup disadvantage for that defense and those who used bulk stats always missed that.   He was not the player they envisioned to him to be.  

 

Edmunds the player is the first example that fans cannot have everything (player-wise) you want and that includes players drafted.  Eventually the cap must be managed and they're doing it.  Right or wrong, that's the issue.  

 

[PrimeTime101]

48 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Agree.

 

Way too many critiques based on hindsight around here.  Trading Edmunds a year or even 2 ago while the Bills were on the threshold of

a SB run would have been irresponsible.

 

I can make an argument that the Bills D scheme was due to Edmund's traits.  I can see McDermott, who just happens to have total control now,

evolving the scheme on D to a post Edmunds team.  With Poyer back, the only big change is Edmunds.  Fans here can debate McDermott's HC

qualities but he is an extremely competent DC.  I have a lot of hope he can adapt with a new D scheme.

Its not hindsight when SOME of us wanted an extension bigger then the 1 year rookie extension. Some of us slammed for wanting a bigger contract last year and now you call it hindsight? how very convenient 

[Tipster19]

6 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

 

I have observed a trend with threads you start in that you never re-enter to discuss.  It's just throw a subject out, let others debate, and then go away.  

 

The discussion and debate around Edmunds has continued ad nauseam to the point it's asinine  The team made a business decision on a player that, yes they selected high, but who provided less than ideal value at a position of lesser importance.  He was a matchup disadvantage for that defense and those who used bulk stats always missed that.   He was not the player they envisioned to him to be.  

 

Edmunds the player is the first example that fans cannot have everything (player-wise) you want and that includes players drafted.  Eventually the cap must be managed and they're doing it.  Right or wrong, that's the issue.  

 

Are you a moderator?? I find your statement inaccurate. Btw, whenever I post a thread THAT is my opinion, it’s not always needed to elaborate on it.

 

The second point of your response really doesn’t make sense. The point of this thread is contracts and if they are good ones but according to you if the Bills are drafting players in the mid 1st rd that “provided less than ideal value at a position of lesser importance” than we got bigger issues than I have realized! Lol!

 

The 3rd point that you’re trying to make is oh well if we whiff on a 1st rd pick and do nothing to minimize that mistake then that’s ok, that’s the price you pay. Do I have that right?? 
 

Anyways how did I do?? Did I engage and argue enough for you?

[Don Otreply]

13 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

Perhaps the amount of money that they were talking about at extension time wasn’t agreeable once again I don’t know I’m just spit balling here. It’s really not like Brandon to not resign his own players.

I think this is what the case was, otherwise they very likely re-sign him, which is the SOP with Beane, the extension they “may have” offered likely made it clear to Edmonds that Buffalo did not see his value where Tremaine felt it should be…, and now he is gone, its moving on time now, jmo.