GunnerBill

I didn't watch KC eating the Bears alive. Wasn't sure who that would be fun for.

I mean teams did definitely throw away from him at times.

Sean is a more aggressive playcaller. That is true. I was more correcting your point re. what Leslie said on adjustments which is often misquoted slightly.

Yea I understand it as a "relative to draft selection and contract" argument.

Yea he isn't worth that when you are already paying him IMO. If you had 2 years of him cheap maybe.

Overall, yes. I just don't think it played its best in some big spots.

No their use of Kincaid yesterday was confusing. In the slot far less in line blocking far more and it was his worst day as a blocker.

Yea but there is projection in that. No projection was needed to know Bates wasn't starter material for a team aiming to compete.

I agree with that.

The bolded is fair. And I agree. But not stepping up in the clutch does not equal liability. That is my entire point. And if Edmunds and / or Frazier were in the way they did a hell of a job to keep being a top 10 defense year in year out.

Yea but if Josh hadn't thrown those passes who would? See! Proof!

It is what a lot of the uber critics here do. They say "ah yes the way it happened was okay... but what if it hadn't happened that way? What if they'd been worse? Then it would have been bad wouldn't it? See there's your proof." It is the most batshit crazy way of engaging in debate.

In principle sure, but I am not sure we have seen Harty's agility and speed yet. We have seen him slipping over and failing to turn the corner.

Again.... liability according to what standard? It is certainly not compared to the average NFL standard. I'm sorry he was never a liability and he never sucked. Roger Saffold last year was a liability who sucked. If you want to say Edmunds was a JAG... fair enough. If you want to say he never lived up to his draft status - I agree. If you want to say he was never worth what Chicago gave him - I agree. If you were arguing for the Bills to let him walk - so was I. But "sucks" and "liability" I'm sorry they are not accurate statements.

I don't think I'd call it disjointed. I think Dorsey was the problem yesterday. Some of his playcalling was bizarre. And I am still not convinced about their design in the redzone, which feels overly contrived. I don't see them run enough what I consider base redzone concepts like the outside rub route, and the Tight End chip and release. The seem obsessed with motioning Harty across the formation then releasing him into the flat. I am a subscriber of "players not plays" in the redzone so I'd like less stuff designed for Harty and more for Diggs and Knox who have been our most reliable redzone guys.

He didn't quite say that. He said you can make adjustments but you have to stay within the confines of the gameplan you have set out, studied and practiced all week and he was against freelancing away from that. To be honest most coordinators would tell you the same. If you start calling stuff you haven't practiced all week (as Rex famously did in that Thursday Night Football against Fitz and the Jets in 2016) the results are rarely good.

And some of us did say he would the day we signed him. Overrated trash.

There were definitely run plays throughout his time here where he would shoot the wrong gap, run into blockers and generally make little impact on the play. No disputing that. But do you really think his overall play as a Bill "[expletive] sucked?" What is your standard for sucking? Like do you think he was one of the worst starting MLBs in football or something? Because to me that is what sucking means. And he wasn't that. He was just what he was an average player who underwhelmed as a first round pick and got overpaid in free agency. I pushed back on the Edmunds excuse threads as well because they'd say stupid things like "his job wasn't to make those plays like Milano" or "you don't understand his role in the scheme." I did. And I do. The Bernard interception yesterday was a Tampa 2 deep drop that Tremaine was asked to do plenty here. We never saw him climb the ladder and come down with one like that despite hia wing span. But when people say he "sucked" or was a "liability" they are as guilty as the excuse makers of hyperbole.

I agree with a lot of your post and was always one who lent away from signing him long term. But he was not a "liability more often than not." And that statement is indicative of the hyperbole that always existed on both sides of the Edmunds debate and persists even post his departure. Tremaine had an up and down first year, a good second year, a disappointing year 3 and 4 and a bounce back in year 5. He was more often than not a solid, effective middle linebacker. The knock on him for the most part was that he just never managed to make enough of the game altering plays that you want. And to pay a middle linebacker they can't just be "solid" they have to make a difference because it isn't a premium position. Edmunds was not a difference maker for the majority of his 5 seasons. That is different than being a liability. Liability is what you saw from Dodson and Klein in pre-season. It is what we feared we might be stuck with this season when, in actual fact, Bernard has got better each game and yesterday was a true difference maker. But even if Bernard had just got to "average" I'd rather have average on a 3rd rounder rookie deal than just a tick above on a $15m deal, let alone the $18m AAV that the Bears gave him.

My constructing the game plan is run and stop the run. The game will be won or lost up front. The Dolphins will make plays in the pass game. So will be the Bills. Will come down to who can control the tempo and run the ball effectively.

At the moment Hardy is less effective in those gimmick play situations than Lil' Dirty.

Denver Broncos say: hold our beer!

And they are right to think that way. I didn't have much of a problem with it in the Jets game because I actually don't think the time cost them there.... if they had just executed the plays.... Josh missed Cook for a walk in touchdown. But yesterday was more perturbing. There was a minute left when Cook runs to the 22 for a first down. They had 3 time outs. I don't actually want them to call a time out there. I want them to let the clock run. But not to run right down to 36 seconds. Hustle up to the line, hand it off again, by that point the clock is at 45 or something and then you call timeout. Now you have two pass play attempts and if you get a first down you can call time out again. It was something they were really good at last year. It hasn't been great this year so far and is a mix of play calling, clock management and execution.

No. So we gotta force that QB to hold the ball.

In fairness he looked really good down the stretch last year. The arc on AJE is: Year 1 - Bills ask him to totally transform his body Year 2 - Bills ask him to use that transformed body to play a different style of game Year 3 - he finally gets comfortable in how to combine the two Year 4 - hopefully builds on a strong end to year 3 and earns himself a contract (I agree with you probably not here) The only way I think it is different to Shaq is teams value what AJE does well higher than what Shaq does well. Shaq is a very good edge setter with limited pure pass rush. AJE is a pass rusher who will never be great at setting the edge. So I think he will get more opportunities wherever he goes than Shaq did. However if a team signs him to be an every down starter they are going to be disappointed.