Is the MLB Competition Over Before It Started?

[TFBillsfan]

1 hour ago, Alpo Chino said:

Edmunds lacks instincts as a run stopper and always seemed to drop interceptions. He will most likely be missed vs the pass. But hopefully with everyone in the secondary seemingly healthier, this makes up for it. MLB should be atop the list of positions to upgrade going into 2024. 

Agree. However, next year will be three straight years drafting a LB. Beane has attempted to address the position with two questionable 3rd round picks.

 

 

[DrDawkinstein]

4 minutes ago, TFBillsfan said:

Agree. However, next year will be three straight years drafting a LB. Beane has attempted to address the position with two questionable 3rd round picks.

 

 

 

Funny because I always say ILB is the defensive equivalent to the RB on the offense. And Beane tried two questionable 3rd round picks to solve our RB situation as well.

[Einstein]

20 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Two words.  Multiple variable.  Go take Statistics 101

 

And there are not multiple variables in your 4-0 comment?

You’re flailing.

[AlCowlingsTaxiService]

5 hours ago, Bigvinny said:

Von Miller even said it was Dodson the whole time.

Von Miller had us signing every free agent of note on the market … how’d that work out?

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, PBF81 said:

 

I haven't seen a single draft profile out there that even approaches agreeing with that.  They say the exact opposite, that he does not have the skillset/phyique to play MLB and is essentially a WLB.  

 

I'm not sure that you realize that.   

 

Bernard was more MLB than Williams is.  

 

 

I don't care so much what the draft profiles were.  I think McDermott is building to a model he thinks is what's needed in the modern NFL.   He wants speed and athleticism and doesn't think size is that important.   I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just what I think he's doing.   He requires speed, athleticism, brains, and aggression in the middle.   Edmunds' size was an added feature, a plus, but not essential to what McDermott is looking for.  Edmunds turned out never to have the aggression.  Williams has it all, with the brains yet to be determined - can he play the position?  I don't think McDermott cares very much that he doesn't have the size Edmunds has.  

[oldmanfan]

27 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

And there are not multiple variables in your 4-0 comment?

You’re flailing.

Yes there are.  Which is why I posted it.  It is a fact the Bills went 4-0 with Dodson starting last year.  Because it is a team game.  

6 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

Well then there's your answer. They, like some on here, probably think a backup is "good enough." I guess we'll see!

No the answer is how well the team plays.  Dodson is one of 11 guys on the defensive side of the ball.

[oldmanfan]

30 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't care so much what the draft profiles were.  I think McDermott is building to a model he thinks is what's needed in the modern NFL.   He wants speed and athleticism and doesn't think size is that important.   I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just what I think he's doing.   He requires speed, athleticism, brains, and aggression in the middle.   Edmunds' size was an added feature, a plus, but not essential to what McDermott is looking for.  Edmunds turned out never to have the aggression.  Williams has it all, with the brains yet to be determined - can he play the position?  I don't think McDermott cares very much that he doesn't have the size Edmunds has.  

My guess is Dodson is in on early downs but they’ll play 4-1-6 on passing downs with Rapp on the field and Milano as the 1 LB.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

37 minutes ago, AlCowlingsTaxiService said:

Von Miller had us signing every free agent of note on the market … how’d that work out?

[Pokebball]

7 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

 

The counterpoint to my argument seems to be "we had a top 5 defense with Edmunds, but let's spend the money elsewhere and worst case still have a top 10 defense with a backup. It's not that much of a difference." I think it will be a very noticeable difference. We saw it last year when Edmunds was out.

Edmunds chased the $. You guys know I'm a Wyoming guy and something I've been doing the last few years is comparing Logan Wilson, MLB for the Bengals with Edmunds. See the link below. The Bengals just extended Wilson for about half of what the Bears are paying Edmunds. And not noted in these stats is that Wilson might be the smartest guy on this team.

 

Edmonds vs Wilson

[Einstein]

43 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

It is a fact the Bills went 4-0 with Dodson starting last year.  

 

Saying that is acceptable.

 

But saying the Bills gave up more points in those games, on average, is not acceptable?

[TheyCallMeAndy]

3 hours ago, PBF81 said:

 

I haven't seen a single draft profile out there that even approaches agreeing with that.  They say the exact opposite, that he does not have the skillset/phyique to play MLB and is essentially a WLB.  

 

I'm not sure that you realize that.   

 

Bernard was more MLB than Williams is.  

 

 

Because amateur scouts with a website and a professional looking for specific traits for a specific defensive scheme are the same thing. McD himself has even said Williams will get looks at MLB once he learns the defense. 

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Saying that is acceptable.

 

But saying the Bills gave up more points in those games, on average, is not acceptable?

Not when you think it’s solely because Dodson started.

[TheyCallMeAndy]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Funny because I always say ILB is the defensive equivalent to the RB on the offense. And Beane tried two questionable 3rd round picks to solve our RB situation as well.

So we draft a tall, athletic LB in the 2nd round next to solve our issues! 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

My guess is Dodson is in on early downs but they’ll play 4-1-6 on passing downs with Rapp on the field and Milano as the 1 LB.

I like that guess.   It's consistent with my guess about what McDermott's grand scheme is.   I think he is testing the limits of the speed-vs-size tradeoff.  He is going to force offenses to prove that they can over the Bills' front seven in the run game, and until those offenses can prove they can do that, McDermott is going to play fast athletes who tackle aggressively.   (That, by the way, may also have something do with why Elam hasn't won the CB2 spot outright - he hasn't brought that kind of talent to stopping the run.  I don't know, but it's consistent with this idea that Bills could play with one linebacker.   If you're taking run stopping linebackers off the field, then the defensive backs have to be run stoppers.)

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't care so much what the draft profiles were.  I think McDermott is building to a model he thinks is what's needed in the modern NFL.   He wants speed and athleticism and doesn't think size is that important.   I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just what I think he's doing.   He requires speed, athleticism, brains, and aggression in the middle.   Edmunds' size was an added feature, a plus, but not essential to what McDermott is looking for.  Edmunds turned out never to have the aggression.  Williams has it all, with the brains yet to be determined - can he play the position?  I don't think McDermott cares very much that he doesn't have the size Edmunds has.  

 

So you think that even though McD said that Williams won't be playing MLB, the he in fact will be playing MLB?  
 

Well, OK.  I'll take McD's word for it however.   I'm not sure what to say otherwise other than if a player's not suited to a position, then it's likely he's not suited to a position.  

 

You say what you think that McD is doing, but then ignore what he's said.  I'm not sure that's a wise way to form opinions as to what will happen.  Do you?  

 

I guess time will tell.  

 

 

[PBF81]

54 minutes ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

Because amateur scouts with a website and a professional looking for specific traits for a specific defensive scheme are the same thing. McD himself has even said Williams will get looks at MLB once he learns the defense. 

 

Amateur Scouts?  nfl.com?  All the major draft profilers that do that for a living?   ... LOL  

 

He did?  I recall reading the opposite.  Do you have any sources for those quotes from camp? 
 

I'll give you that he said that earlier in the offseason prior to training camp starting.  But I don't believe that Williams was in contention for the role in Camp, I'm not even sure he got any reps at MLB?  Did he?  

 

Even the football media was questioning what McD was thinking as well.  It's definitely odd to suggest that a player that not a single notable draft profile, if any at all, said was capable of playing a position, yet that a coach declares that he'll be playing that position.  I'm guessing that this falls right in line with Oliver being the next Aaron Donald.  

 

McD's recent statements have indicated that Williams will not be given a chance to start at MLB.  Whether he changes his mind once again is anyone's guess.  Tells me that it's questionable as to whether McD even knows what he's doing at this point with that hole in the middle of the D.   Speaking for myself, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.  

 

Here's a piece on it;   https://billswire.usatoday.com/2023/07/27/buffalo-bills-dorian-williams-training-camp-brandon-beane/

 

You and Shaw aren't arguing with me, take it up with McD.  And FWIW, Williams was Milano's backup on the only depth chart that they've released to date.  

 

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by PBF81

[Dr. Who]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't care so much what the draft profiles were.  I think McDermott is building to a model he thinks is what's needed in the modern NFL.   He wants speed and athleticism and doesn't think size is that important.   I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just what I think he's doing.   He requires speed, athleticism, brains, and aggression in the middle.   Edmunds' size was an added feature, a plus, but not essential to what McDermott is looking for.  Edmunds turned out never to have the aggression.  Williams has it all, with the brains yet to be determined - can he play the position?  I don't think McDermott cares very much that he doesn't have the size Edmunds has.  

Folks who are already writing him off as a future MLB are presumptuous, imo. If you listen to Bobby Babich's recent interview, it's clear they are looking for a mix of sufficient size and strength with speed to match the way offenses are currently configured. Some of the folks complaining in this thread are still probably fuming that we traded a fourth to move up and grab Kincaid. I'm guessing a contingent that wanted Jack Campbell badly are going to sulk all season and a few will perversely relish signs of deficiency at the position. It seems evident that Beane and McDermott concluded that they could make up for caliber of player with scheme at MLB. It was more important to improve the oline and add a pass receiving threat. I think that was the right priority, and I also hope that McDermott attacks a lot more than Frazier did. 

[PBF81]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Folks who are already writing him off as a future MLB are presumptuous, imo. 

 

Many, if not most, would argue that it's presumptuous to think that someone of Williams' stature and abilities could play MLB in the NFL.  Not me per se, but pretty much every scout that contributed to his draft profile.  

 

Playing MLB at Tulane is a whole lot different than playing MLB in the NFL.   They said similar re: Bernard last season.  Did Williams even play MLB at Tulane at all?  My understanding is that he was the WLB there, which is why he's backing up Milano.  

 

IMO most people are simply rendering inconceivable that they simply didn't plan very well for Edmunds' departure.  I'm not sure what that possibility is out of the question.  

 

 

[oldmanfan]

32 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

So you think that even though McD said that Williams won't be playing MLB, the he in fact will be playing MLB?  
 

Well, OK.  I'll take McD's word for it however.   I'm not sure what to say otherwise other than if a player's not suited to a position, then it's likely he's not suited to a position.  

 

You say what you think that McD is doing, but then ignore what he's said.  I'm not sure that's a wise way to form opinions as to what will happen.  Do you?  

 

I guess time will tell.  

 

 

Yes time will tell and what Shaw clearly said, and I believe Beane as well, is that for now he’ll be outside.  What happens next year will be seen then.

24 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Amateur Scouts?  nfl.com?  All the major draft profilers that do that for a living?   ... LOL  

 

He did?  I recall reading the opposite.  Do you have any sources for those quotes from camp? 
 

I'll give you that he said that earlier in the offseason prior to training camp starting.  But I don't believe that Williams was in contention for the role in Camp, I'm not even sure he got any reps at MLB?  Did he?  

 

Even the football media was questioning what McD was thinking as well.  It's definitely odd to suggest that a player that not a single notable draft profile, if any at all, said was capable of playing a position, yet that a coach declares that he'll be playing that position.  I'm guessing that this falls right in line with Oliver being the next Aaron Donald.  

 

McD's recent statements have indicated that Williams will not be given a chance to start at MLB.  Whether he changes his mind once again is anyone's guess.  Tells me that it's questionable as to whether McD even knows what he's doing at this point with that hole in the middle of the D.   Speaking for myself, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence.  

 

Here's a piece on it;   https://billswire.usatoday.com/2023/07/27/buffalo-bills-dorian-williams-training-camp-brandon-beane/

 

You and Shaw aren't arguing with me, take it up with McD.  And FWIW, Williams was Milano's backup on the only depth chart that they've released to date.  

 

 

He’s knows exactly what he’s doing.  You thinking you know more about how NFL defenses work than McD is pretty funny.  Funny bizarre, not funny ha-ha.

[PBF81]

10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You thinking you know more about how NFL defenses work than McD is pretty funny.  Funny bizarre, not funny ha-ha.

 

What's funnier is you posturing to suggest that I said something that I didn't say or think.  

 

I said the entire football media questioned him.  Take it up with them.   I am merely doing the same as them, pointing out the inconsistencies in his statements.  Take that up with him.  

 

I'm relying on what numerous other NFL scouts, GMs, and others perhaps even more knowledgeable than McD, despite the fact that I realize many here think that there isn't a coach out there that's smarter than McD besides Reid, have said.  Pardon me for doing that.  LOL  

 

Honesly, some of you ... 

 

Can't even have a simple discussion without middle school inuendo.  

 

 

10 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Yes time will tell and what Shaw clearly said, and I believe Beane as well, is that for now he’ll be outside.  

 

And here's what Shaw "clearly said;"  

 

Quote

He (McD) requires speed, athleticism, brains, and aggression in the middle.   ...   Williams has it all, with the brains yet to be determined - can he play the position?  I don't think McDermott cares very much that he doesn't have the size Edmunds has.  

 

Pretty clear.  I'm not sure he needs you to defend his statements.  

 

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by PBF81

[Shaw66]

53 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

So you think that even though McD said that Williams won't be playing MLB, the he in fact will be playing MLB?  
 

Well, OK.  I'll take McD's word for it however.   I'm not sure what to say otherwise other than if a player's not suited to a position, then it's likely he's not suited to a position.  

 

You say what you think that McD is doing, but then ignore what he's said.  I'm not sure that's a wise way to form opinions as to what will happen.  Do you?  

 

I guess time will tell.  

 

 

What they've said is he will be outside for now.   I think we won't see Williams inside this season.  I think we will see him working in the middle beginning off season in 2024.

[PBF81]

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

What they've said is he will be outside for now.   I think we won't see Williams inside this season.  I think we will see him working in the middle beginning off season in 2024.

 

Point is that you claim that he is capable of playing middle, whether this season, next, whenever, when there isn't a draft profile out there even remotely claiming that he has the skills, size, etc. to be able to do so effectively.  Feel free to think that, I have no issue with it, but I will simply point out that that's an isolated claim not backed by anyone that knows football.  

 

We're also indirectly discussing whether or not McBeane have properly planned for Edmunds' departure.  There's ample evidence to the notion that they have not.  The only evidence against it is that McD has something unconventional planned, yet no one seems to know what it is in a cart/horse type of thing.  He'll have to try something if Dodson doesn't work out, and I'm sure everyone will be claiming what a genius he is for doing it even if his hand was forced and it doesn't work out.  

 

Many are asking that as well.  Not sure why it's posited that I'm the only one.  It's even perhaps the position of most uncertainty in McD's entire tenure here.  

 

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by PBF81

[Shaw66]

25 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

 

IMO most people are simply rendering inconceivable that they simply didn't plan very well for Edmunds' departure.  I'm not sure what that possibility is out of the question.  

 

 

It IS inconceivable.  McBeane didn't think they needed more help in the middle.  How do we know?  Because they didn't go get any help.  None in the draft and none in free agency.  They drafted a project in Williams, not to start this season.  

 

Beane has ALWAYS gotten help in places where the Bills believed they had holes.  The fact that they didn't get any help at all means they've always been willing to go with the four guys they had on the roster and PS  last season.  

 

 

[PBF81]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

It IS inconceivable.  McBeane didn't think they needed more help in the middle.  How do we know?  Because they didn't go get any help.  None in the draft and none in free agency.  They drafted a project in Williams, not to start this season.  

 

Beane has ALWAYS gotten help in places where the Bills believed they had holes.  The fact that they didn't get any help at all means they've always been willing to go with the four guys they had on the roster and PS  last season.  

 

 

 

Well then, I suppose it's time to start questioning Beane's regimen and decision making.  

 

We must assume then as well by implication, that he's also thought that our OL has been fine in his five seasons to date since likewise, because he didn't go get any significant help.  ... or what he did get sucked.  You can choose.  

 

Same for WRs?  

 

RBs to date?  

 

If that's your logic then it's only honest and consistent to apply it across the board to the entire team.  

 

Heaven knows we've drafted enough DL-men.  

 

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by PBF81

[Dr. Who]

30 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Many, if not most, would argue that it's presumptuous to think that someone of Williams' stature and abilities could play MLB in the NFL.  Not me per se, but pretty much every scout that contributed to his draft profile.  

 

Playing MLB at Tulane is a whole lot different than playing MLB in the NFL.   They said similar re: Bernard last season.  Did Williams even play MLB at Tulane at all?  My understanding is that he was the WLB there, which is why he's backing up Milano.  

 

IMO most people are simply rendering inconceivable that they simply didn't plan very well for Edmunds' departure.  I'm not sure what that possibility is out of the question.  

 

 

I already pointed to the Babich interview. MLB in the NFL used to be a thumper. It isn't now because the game has changed. McDermott wants a different kind of MLB in his defense. Obviously, Williams is not going to be that player this year, but he may become the sort of player they are looking for next year. Whether he does or he doesn't, what is your alternative? They weren't going to pay Edmunds the kind of money he got from the Bears. There were few LBs rated highly in the draft. If you spend a first or second rounder on LB, you're not allocating an early pick for oline or a fella like Kincaid. You plan based on what is available, right? If they had to take a hit, I'd rather it was LB than not helping Josh early in the draft.

[Shaw66]

2 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Point is that you claim that he is capable of playing middle, whether this season, next, whenever, when there isn't a draft profile out there even remotely claiming that he has the skills, size, etc. to be able to do so effectively.  Feel free to think that, I have no issue with it, but I will simply point out that that's an isolated claim not backed by anyone that knows football.  

 

We're also indirectly discussing whether or not McBeane have properly planned for Edmunds' departure.  There's ample evidence to the notion that they have not.  The only evidence against it is that McD has something unconventional planned, yet no one seems to know what it is in a cart/horse type of thing.  He'll have to try something if Dodson doesn't work out, and I'm sure everyone will be claiming what a genius he is for doing it even if his hand was forced and it doesn't work out.  

 

Many are asking that as well.  Not sure why it's posited that I'm the only one.  It's even perhaps the position of most uncertainty in McD's entire tenure here.  

 

 

This is nonsense.   You are ignoring what I say and responding with nothing that is responsive to what I said. 

 

I did not say he is capable of playing the middle.  I said it seems that McDermott has a different view of how he wants to build his defense, and that is to have fast athletic guys on the field who are aggressive tacklers.   Williams is a guy who fits that description.  They've said they would like to play him in the middle, but that he'll begin his career on the outside.   That's what they've said.   The fact that other draft analysts says that he isn't a middle linebacker is based primarily on their view that linebackers have to be bigger.   It's completely obvious that the Bills don't agree with that.  I have said practically nothing about whether I think Williams can play the middle; I don't know.   What I do know is the Bills think he can, and you keep ignoring that. 

 

Second, you suggest that the Bills didn't plan for Edmunds departure.  You continue to ignore, completely, what I've said.   If they thought that that they needed help, they would have gotten it.   They made no moves to get help, which means they believed that they can the play they want in the middle from Dodson, Klein, Bernard, and Spector.   That's certainly what they believed.   They did not fail to plan for Edmunds departure.   You may not think those guys can play the middle, and you are free to have your opinion.   But your opinion about middle linebacker does not mean the the Bills failed to plan for the position.  It just means Beane and McDermott think that the talent they have will work fine in the defense they want.  

 

Many others may be positing it, but you are the one who is consistently mischaracterizing what I am saying.  

 

Bye. 

[stinky finger]

9 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

And what would your answer be?  Bring in a guy with no experience in McD’s defense, whether rookie or vet? ?  Or stick with a veteran who knows the system as has performed fairly well within it?

 

When are fans going to get it through their heads that there is a salary cap in the NFL and because of that you are not going to have All Pros at every spot on the field?  If one were to listen to the hysteria this past off season we should have brought high priced guys in at MLB, WR2, RT.  That is not the way the NFL works.

 

 

This ^^^

 

AND....is there anything worse then paying a player top dollar that doesn't deserve it?

[PBF81]

Just now, Dr. Who said:

I already pointed to the Babich interview. MLB in the NFL used to be a thumper. It isn't now because the game has changed. McDermott wants a different kind of MLB in his defense. Obviously, Williams is not going to be that player this year, but he may become the sort of player they are looking for next year.  

 

Yes, I realize that about what Babich said.  But saying things and reality are two different things often.  This is one of those times.  

 

Look, all I'm saying is that there isn't anyone out there in NFL circles that claims that Williams is capable of playing MLB.  You, everyone else, can argue that, whether it's for this season or future seasons.  But we're talking about this season right now.  Clearly Williams, at this point in time, is nowhere near being slated to play MLB.  Do you disagree?  If not, great, we're on the same page.  

 

At the end of the day, we have an issue now, today, for this season.  Either this situation was planned, or not.  Those are the only two alternatives, plain and simple.  Wordsmithing it into something else does not change the situation for this season in the least.  

 

As to what McD wants or what Williams may become is also irrelevant for the time being.  McD has wanted a lot of things from our drafted DL-men, Oliver, apparently Edmunds, Ford, Brown, Singletary, Moss, etc.  They haven't all worked out to be what McD has wanted.  Sad truths.  

 

 

Just now, Dr. Who said:

Whether he does or he doesn't, what is your alternative? They weren't going to pay Edmunds the kind of money he got from the Bears. There were few LBs rated highly in the draft. If you spend a first or second rounder on LB, you're not allocating an early pick for oline or a fella like Kincaid. You plan based on what is available, right? If they had to take a hit, I'd rather it was LB than not helping Josh early in the draft.

 

My alternative doesn't matter.  Why would it.  If I'd been running the team my personnel decisions would have been different and I wouldn't have allowed us to get to this situation.  Also, it seems as if they, the same coaching staff that everyone applauds, actually wanted to keep Edmunds if they could have, yet the same people applauding McD & Co., claim that Edmunds sucks, which appears to be in direct contrast with team statements.  

 

Allow me to ask you a question.  Is this situation (MLB) deliberate, or not?  

 

 

[Shaw66]

8 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Well then, I suppose it's time to start questioning Beane's regimen and decision making.  

 

We must assume then as well by implication, that he's also thought that our OL has been fine in his five seasons to date since likewise, because he didn't go get any significant help.  ... or what he did get sucked.  You can choose.  

 

Same for WRs?  

 

RBs to date?  

 

If that's your logic then it's only honest and consistent to apply it across the board to the entire team.  

 

Heaven knows we've drafted enough DL-men.  

 

 

Listen.  You don't like some players.  Fine.  That doesn't mean Beane's done a bad.   Beane has repeatedly addressed the oline, albeit with less success than the Bills needed.   He did it again this season, with a significant free agent acquisition and a second round pick, as well as other help at OT.  Same with wide receivers?  Are kidding?  He acquired Brown, Beasley, Diggs, Davis, two excellent tight ends, Shakir, and now Shorter, Harty and Sherfield.   Running backs?   He got Singletary, Moss, Hines, Cook, Murray, and Harris.   You are way off base if you think Beane's don't an overall bad job at those positions.   

[PBF81]

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

This is nonsense.   You are ignoring what I say and responding with nothing that is responsive to what I said. 

 

I did not say he is capable of playing the middle.  I said it seems that McDermott has a different view of how he wants to build his defense, and that is to have fast athletic guys on the field who are aggressive tacklers.   Williams is a guy who fits that description.  They've said they would like to play him in the middle, but that he'll begin his career on the outside.   That's what they've said.   The fact that other draft analysts says that he isn't a middle linebacker is based primarily on their view that linebackers have to be bigger.   It's completely obvious that the Bills don't agree with that.  I have said practically nothing about whether I think Williams can play the middle; I don't know.   What I do know is the Bills think he can, and you keep ignoring that. 

 

Second, you suggest that the Bills didn't plan for Edmunds departure.  You continue to ignore, completely, what I've said.   If they thought that that they needed help, they would have gotten it.   They made no moves to get help, which means they believed that they can the play they want in the middle from Dodson, Klein, Bernard, and Spector.   That's certainly what they believed.   They did not fail to plan for Edmunds departure.   You may not think those guys can play the middle, and you are free to have your opinion.   But your opinion about middle linebacker does not mean the the Bills failed to plan for the position.  It just means Beane and McDermott think that the talent they have will work fine in the defense they want.  

 

Many others may be positing it, but you are the one who is consistently mischaracterizing what I am saying.  

 

Bye. 

 

I quoted what you said, I think it speaks for itself.  If not, choose your wording more carefully.  Here it is again;  

 

Quote

He (McD) requires speed, athleticism, brains, and aggression in the middle.   ...   Williams has it all, with the brains yet to be determined - can he play the position?  I don't think McDermott cares very much that he doesn't have the size Edmunds has.  

 

If you want to backtrack, feel free.  Honestly, I don't care, I'm not in this to make you look bad.  But YOU said what I just quoted.  LOL  

 

You also jumped into the middle of an exchange where someone was defending Williams' ability to play MLB, in defense of the person making that claim.  Honetly, what do you expect readers to think.  

 

Absolutely no one's going to read your statement and think that you don't think that at some point Williams is capable of playing MLB.  

 

Again, all I'm pointing out is that these opinions that he can are unique to Bills fans, much in the same way that they are for many of our draft picks that never own up to expectations of McBeane.  No one else out there in NFL circles, at least no one that I've seen, including numerous NFL scouts and GMs having commented on Williams, even if only anonymously as they do for draft profiles, agrees with that sentiment.  

 

Why is that so painful for people to accept?  

I'm not getting it.  

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Listen.  You don't like some players.  Fine.  That doesn't mean Beane's done a bad.   Beane has repeatedly addressed the oline, albeit with less success than the Bills needed.   He did it again this season, with a significant free agent acquisition and a second round pick, as well as other help at OT.  Same with wide receivers?  Are kidding?  He acquired Brown, Beasley, Diggs, Davis, two excellent tight ends, Shakir, and now Shorter, Harty and Sherfield.   Running backs?   He got Singletary, Moss, Hines, Cook, Murray, and Harris.   You are way off base if you think Beane's don't an overall bad job at those positions.   

 

Again, entirely not the point.  Go back and carefully read what I said.  Getting tired of restating it over and over.  It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation when you're not even responding to the actual points that I make and instead respond to implications that you seem to think stem from those even when I plainly state that they're not the case.  

 

Have a great evening Shaw. 

 

 

9 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Listen.  You don't like some players.  Fine.  That doesn't mean Beane's done a bad.   Beane has repeatedly addressed the oline, albeit with less success than the Bills needed.   He did it again this season, with a significant free agent acquisition and a second round pick, as well as other help at OT.  Same with wide receivers?  Are kidding?  He acquired Brown, Beasley, Diggs, Davis, two excellent tight ends, Shakir, and now Shorter, Harty and Sherfield.   Running backs?   He got Singletary, Moss, Hines, Cook, Murray, and Harris.   You are way off base if you think Beane's don't an overall bad job at those positions.   

 

And I'll tell you what, I'll ask you the very same question that I asked Dr. Who above;  

 

Is this situation (MLB) deliberate, or not? 

Put another way, is the current situation planned by Beane?   

Put yet a third way, is THIS what they wanted re: our current MLB situation?  

 

It's a yes/no question.  

 

 

[DCofNC]

9 hours ago, Buffalo Boy said:

And the Panthers erected a statue of him outside their stadium!

A small statue , but a statue nonetheless.

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

My alternative doesn't matter.  Why would it.  If I'd been running the team my personnel decisions would have been different and I wouldn't have allowed us to get to this situation.  Also, it seems as if they, the same coaching staff that everyone applauds, actually wanted to keep Edmunds if they could have, yet the same people applauding McD & Co., claim that Edmunds sucks, which appears to be in direct contrast with team statements.  

 

Allow me to ask you a question.  Is this situation (MLB) deliberate, or not?  

 

 

First, not that it matters, but I am not an apologist for McDermott and Beane. I think they are solid. I like them, but I have been critical of quite a few of their decisions. One is allowed to have a complex, nuanced take. I believe you are aware of this. Second, this talk of yours regarding some hypothetical imaginary realm where you would have made many very different decisions so that the entire dilemma would never have arisen is quite impossible. Such a counter-history is nothing more than vague rhetoric. You want to criticize concrete decisions in very particular situations, then refuse to answer how else it could have been handled in concrete terms by alluding to an inherently nebulous alternate universe. 

 

I think Shaw is basically correct. They had a price they were willing to pay for Edmunds. He got an offer that far exceeded what they thought he was worth. (Folks who agree with this assessment do not universally say Edmunds sucks. I think he was a good, but flawed player. I'd have been happy to keep him, but not at the price he went for. I'd also prefer a LB with much better instincts.) They determined the hit from Edmunds' loss was not so substantial that they needed to allocate a high draft pick or priority free agent to replace him. They may be wrong, but that is their judgment. Evidently Williams was the highest rated LB on their board at the time of the pick. Since in the real world, one has to make prudential decisions and trade off one good against another, the result of their deliberations was that it was more probable the team would be helped by drafting offense early. In that sense, they chose where they are at, but it was still dictated by what was possible in particular circumstances.

 

Frankly, all of the above seems pretty much common sense to me.

 

[PBF81]

7 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

First, not that it matters, but I am not an apologist for McDermott and Beane. I think they are solid. I like them, but I have been critical of quite a few of their decisions. One is allowed to have a complex, nuanced take. I believe you are aware of this. Second, this talk of yours regarding some hypothetical imaginary realm where you would have made many very different decisions so that the entire dilemma would never have arisen is quite impossible. Such a counter-history is nothing more than vague rhetoric. You want to criticize concrete decisions in very particular situations, then refuse to answer how else it could have been handled in concrete terms by alluding to an inherently nebulous alternate universe. 

 

I think Shaw is basically correct. They had a price they were willing to pay for Edmunds. He got an offer that far exceeded what they thought he was worth. (Folks who agree with this assessment do not universally say Edmunds sucks. I think he was a good, but flawed player. I'd have been happy to keep him, but not at the price he went for. I'd also prefer a LB with much better instincts.) They determined the hit from Edmunds' loss was not so substantial that they needed to allocate a high draft pick or priority free agent to replace him. They may be wrong, but that is their judgment. Evidently Williams was the highest rated LB on their board at the time of the pick. Since in the real world, one has to make prudential decisions and trade off one good against another, the result of their deliberations was that it was more probable the team would be helped by drafting offense early. In that sense, they chose where they are at, but it was still dictated by what was possible in particular circumstances.

 

Frankly, all of the above seems pretty much common sense to me.

 

 

OK, so you choose not to answer the question.  That's fine.  I understand.  

 

Let's see if Shaw answers it.  

 

 

[VaMilBill]

10 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:

This "competition" was never much of a competition to begin with. They had Dodson, who is a career backup but knows the defense, and they had Bernard, who is the size of a safety. They never even made an attempt to replace Edmunds and I think it will come back to bite them in the you know what. The MLB is a very important piece in this defense. It's the Luke Kuechly position. You can't just stick a backup in there and call it a day

Bernard is the size of a safety and moves like Brandon spikes. Not a great combo

[PBF81]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Second, this talk of yours regarding some hypothetical imaginary realm where you would have made many very different decisions so that the entire dilemma would never have arisen is quite impossible.  

 

BTW, I'm not quite sure what's so imaginary about our current MLB situation, or issue as many see it.  

 

It was either planned for as such or it was not planned for as such.  It's not a difficult question, really.    

 

 

[Dr. Who]

Just now, PBF81 said:

 

BTW, I'm not quite sure what's so imaginary about our current MLB situation, or issue as many see it.  

 

It was either planned for as such or it was not planned for as such.  It's not a difficult question, really.    

 

 

I believe I did answer the question. The fact that you refuse to see that says something either about your character or your reading comprehension. I already explained what was imaginary. It was not the MLB situation. Maybe you'd be happier hanging out with Airseven.

 

[Chaos]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

ou thinking you know more about how NFL defenses work than McD is pretty funny.

Bet he knows more about when to squib kick. 

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, Dr. Who said:

I believe I did answer the question. The fact that you refuse to see that says something either about your character or your reading comprehension. I already explained what was imaginary. It was not the MLB situation. Maybe you'd be happier hanging out with Airseven.

 

 

You believe you did?  

 

I'll tell ya what, re-quote the direct answer to the question only that you say you posted.  I'll admit if you did.  

 

Perhaps I missed it.  I'm open to that.  

 

 

[Thurman#1]

12 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

I believe they were 4-0 with Dodson starting last year.

 

 

From what I can see Dodson had three starts last year, against Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Detroit. Detroit's decent, but that was not Murderer's Row.

 

Against Pit, he had 84% of defensive snaps. Against Cle, 100%. And against Detroit 14%, which is just not much.

 

He only played more than 20% of snaps against three teams, including Minnesota, and the Bills looked like a different and much worse defense with Edmunds out after his injury.

 

So when Dotson played more than 20% of snaps, it looked like this:

 

Pittsburgh 9-8 W (84% Dotson)

Minnesota 13-4 L (64% Dotson)

Cleveland 7-10 W (100% Dotson)

 

Also worth noting that they easily handled the Steeler offense, allowing only three points, but that the Vikes scored the most points of any one against our defense last year and the Browns tied for 5th highest points against us and the Vikes ran up the most yards against our D and the Browns the 4th highest. And the Steelers the 6th highest.

 

And that in the first half of the Minny game, they scored 10 points, and 20 in the second half with Edmunds out plus the 3 in OT. 151 yards in the first half on six drives and 273 yards in the 2nd half on six drives and 60 on the one drive in OT. They were a different defense with Dodson in.

 

Not saying we're doomed. Not at all. But the change in MLB will have a real impact. Can they make it up elsewhere?

 

 

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

What they've said is he will be outside for now.   I think we won't see Williams inside this season.  I think we will see him working in the middle beginning off season in 2024.

 

 

That seems a very reasonable guess.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2023 by Thurman#1

[Dr. Who]

46 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

You believe you did?  

 

I'll tell ya what, re-quote the direct answer to the question only that you say you posted.  I'll admit if you did.  

 

Perhaps I missed it.  I'm open to that.  

 

 

Your question: Allow me to ask you a question.  Is this situation (MLB) deliberate, or not?  

 

My answer: They determined the hit from Edmunds' loss was not so substantial that they needed to allocate a high draft pick or priority free agent to replace him. They may be wrong, but that is their judgment. Evidently Williams was the highest rated LB on their board at the time of the pick. Since in the real world, one has to make prudential decisions and trade off one good against another, the result of their deliberations was that it was more probable the team would be helped by drafting offense early. In that sense, they chose where they are at, but it was still dictated by what was possible in particular circumstances.

 

I had attempted to give some helpful context, in spite of your rather petulant demand for a yes or no response. I have bolded the part that ought to answer your question. There's no evasion on my part, just stipulation of what I deem relevant considerations that you apparently find unimportant.