Rochesterfan

That is fine, but then why give back the assets to move to 6 originally. You got capital and then gave back capital to move back up - now you are looking for Detroit, Denver, or Carolina to move up to ensure you get one of those guys and you have to hope they are doing it for a QB. I understood the original 2 moves for that exact reason you mention. They have 4 guys and now the 1st 3 picks are QBs - 6 is perfect. You lose out on TE and either OL or 1 of the 2 receivers, but you are left with 2 guys. If you move back to 8 or 9 and you lose out on those 2 players - does the extra picks mean as much? At this point - I would not assume Detroit, Denver, or Carolina are moving for a QB.

If Pitts is what they wanted and felt he was by far the pick - then the trade down from 3 to 12 and back up to 6 was stupid. They were in position to ensure they get Pitts and moved on. If Atl takes Pitts and the Dolphins slide back - then the trade up early seems ill conceived. I totally agree this is all about ruses and lies - they are hoping another team moves up ahead of them for a QB - I just don’t see a real move back that helps long term and still gives you a quality player.

I totally agree - I also expect them to pick up Allen’s option either way because his option will be 10-15 million less per than than his final contract most likely - so I think that is a cheap value to add a year to any extension. I think the Bills hoped to get him settled and then work on Edmunds, but after the most recent press conference- you are correct he made it sound like the 2 5th year options might be to much. Therefore - (and I am only trying to think about this logically) - IF they want to keep Edmunds and they believe the 5th year options are to much, but they are definitely picking up Allen’s - to me logically maybe the order has had changed (or they are working on them simultaneously). Maybe they feel 12-15 million is to much for Edmunds - so they look to forgo the option and get him on a deal like Milano’s with money up front so he gets paid, but an annual salary that is acceptable next year with the expected shrunken CAP - that expands in 2023 when there is more space in play. If Beane is truly worried about the CAP next season and feels the 5th year option on Edmunds will be tough to squeeze in - then the franchise tag at +2.2 million (or more) will also be difficult - the only 3rd option to keep him around is an immediate extension. What we as fans do not know is what discussion has already taken place and what framework is set. Does Beane know what Edmunds is looking for and can it get done? Does Beane know that Edmunds price tag is outside what he wants and therefore they are really looking at LB with the 1st round pick and then trading Edmunds? Does Beane feel it is ok to take a risk and let the season play out with Edmunds as an impending FA - knowing he could get a deal done like Milano, Williams, and Feliciano - on the cusp of FA (especially with the tag still available)? The options are crazy - we just have limited knowledge of what the Bills plans are and what value they have assigned Edmunds (and he assigns himself).

Yes and the immediate answer is the Bills knew that was not good enough and moved on from Brown immediately. Why should this be different. If they were not at all happy with Edmunds - wouldn’t they of looked to switch it up and move him around to OLB or something? Wouldn’t they look for the veteran replacement and find a different spot for him - if he is as bad as people say. The pat answer is no - the Bills FO has pride and doesn’t want to look bad because he was a high draft pick, but they were not afraid to move and replace Cody Ford on the OLine - even bringing in a veteran replacement, they moved on from Zay Jones another high pick, other picks like Ray Ray McCloud were cut - so it appears the bills staff recognizes failure to produce what they want. Even so far as drafting Moss after drafting Singletary or bringing in Hollister to help Knox. The facts as we have it right now is that the Bills started Edmunds in year 1 at MLB and he had struggles and issues, but got better as the year went on. They put him back in the middle in year 2 and he had his best year and was a ProBowl alternate. Year 1 and 2 he was above average in pass defense including some Ints and TEs struggled mightily against the defense including no TDs in his first year. The Bills put him back in the middle in year 3 and he was an outright ProBowl selection at the end of the year. Another fact is that he struggles when DL get their hands on him - he can’t get away and make plays. What are opinions and thoughts seem to be that: Last year he struggled in coverage and against the run. We also know he was injured, but we will never know exactly how bad, but he missed a game and it seemed to affect him for several others. There are opinions that he is late and makes a lot of bad run fill reads and makes many tackles down field. The prevailing opinion, and maybe it is 100% correct, is that he never makes a big or important play. What we have seen from the Bills is that they must feel he is at least adequate at the job they are asking him to do. 3 years and they have not worked to replace him, bench him, or take him off the field. He plays just about the highest percentage of snaps on the defense of any player game after game - so they must not consider him to much of a liability. The Bills do seem to have qualms about what his value is because they have not outright picked up the option and very little has been said about an extension. Again the proof will be in the action - do they draft a guy like Collins to fill the MLB and move Edmunds around? Do they not pick up his option after the draft? Do the Bills tell us they are going to let him play out the season and we will decide his fate after the season? Do they give Klein more early snaps in the middle and just bring in Edmunds on passing downs? Does his number and percentage of snaps drop significantly? These will all tell us what they think. Right now every indication is that the Bills are fine with him as they have done nothing that limits his time on the field - through 3 FA periods and 2 drafts. They also did not indicate the option was off the table - just that they were waiting until after the draft - which could indicate something or could be a sign of the Bills working on some long term deals that might give the flexibility to use the option.

I agree his size makes it difficult to shed blockers and get into position to make tackles. I just think - especially in today’s NFL - the Bills are not really worried about the LBs being run stoppers. They just aren’t. The proof is in the scheme - 90+% of the time they are in nickle and have just Edmunds and Milano as LBs. Milano is really a glorified safety - so size and personnel wise - they just do not respect the running game as a viable threat. The scheme seems to be very DL driven to sop the run - as they ask the DEs to contain a lot and do not have the DTs shooting gaps. The LBs are there for passing presence and to clean up. The Bills are not playing an aggressive attacking defense and people should not expect the MLB to be aggressive and attacking in this style. The Bills defensive plans for the last 4 years are bend - don’t break. Keep things in front and force check downs, short passes, and runs and make teams move down the field in long drives. They will make a mistake and then you can attack in certain situations like 3 rd and long. I think fans conflate his play with what the team concept is. They want him attacking, but the team wants him thinking pass first. Around the league - he seems to garner respect for his play, but there are times where both he and the defense are to passive and that allows gameplans to focus on moving him or waiting. If you watch things like the KC game - he is in position o defend specific passing windows and the Chiefs just wait and hit secondary windows. We watched Josh do it all year to other teams, but ignore it from ours.

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.

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.

Really - Bills fans would be looking at a 2x ProBowl player on another team and saying this guys sucks? My guess is Bills fans would look quickly at the stats, the ProBowls, his age, his measurables and they would be drooling for Beane to find a way to get him in here. Heck they drooled for guys like Hassan Reddick that basically did nothing for multiple years and finally in his contract year put double digit sack numbers. Prior to that his sacks were on par with Edmunds and he is an OLB. His tackles were significantly less and he was a fraction of the player Edmunds is. My guess is people say Edmunds sucks because they want a huge run stuffing MLB and the Bills defense doesn’t set up that way - so Edmunds is the blame. He is not perfect and he makes mistakes, but there is a far more likely chance that we downgrade in replacing him than most people think.

Agreed - so then why trade back down a second time. If someone is moving up to get a QB ahead of Detroit or Denver - you are dropping back to the teens and outside of the top tier guys. You picked up a good haul dropping back to 12 and then gave away more than 1/2 to move back up to 6. The net acquired by Miami was less than a single trade from 3 to 6, but the 2 trades put them in position to still get a top guy and acquire a 1st rd pick a ways out. I just do not understand the smokescreen given to move back down again - if that is even a remote though process - the move back up from 12 to 6 was stupid and worthless.

Yes they are, but to be in that position they had to trade back up and gave away a top pick. If they then trade back down - at least to me - it means the FO got out thought. They moved back early to let a team get a QB and moved up early for obviously someone (I think Pitts). If they don’t get that guy and have to trade down - that is a huge blunder as the guy would of been there at 3. They got extra picks, but if it costs them an elite tiered player then they totally botched the draft. The extra picks in the middle or later part of the round help build depth, but the top tiered guys are usually in the top 5. The Dolphins get lucky with a plethora of QBs - some elite talent will fall to 6, but they need to grab it.

I don’t think Shanny or Lynch are in any trouble no matter what happens this year or next year. That Ownership wants them to be successful and will give them longer than they should. I think they get this QB and 2-3 full years to see if the QB works. Whether they start him day #1 or let Jimmy G play out the year and start him for year #2. The only way I see them getting canned early is if they moved up and they draft a position other than QB (not happening) and a QB they could of drafted becomes a rising star. Myself - I think the Mac Jones hype is a smoke screen. I think he is good, but they could of gotten him with a small move up. The move to 3 puts added pressure and I think it comes down to Fields and Lance. I think Fields is the safer choice and within that scheme can flourish, but Lance to me has the higher upside and most room for growth - especially in a stable situation. With Jimmy G in place and a ton of weapons - I would favor the bigger risk of Lance - especially after they saw JA personally destroy their DC with things that only a few guys could do. Lance also is more of an under center guy and that helps immensely in the Shanny offense.

I think this is spot on. You can get Tua/Mac Jones - a guy you can win with, but if at your pick you also have the elite traits guy and you pass - ala Herbert last year - that is significantly harder on the fan base. The amount of questions that the front office fields and the need to try and build a successful offense to make up for the pick - pulls focus from what you need to do. The drafting of Tua and success of Herbert caused Miami to overplay and have to pull Tua several times trying to get into the playoffs and the entire thing was a mistake. The Miami staff got caught up in competition and it cost them and now they are trying to build the offense and so far it does not seem to fit the QB they have that is risk adverse and throws short with anticipation.

Over the years - I would say mainly defensive players. My 1st choice would be Ted Washington (such a mountain of a man). Then probably Sam Adams/Pat Williams. Mario Williams would be my DE beating out a guy like Schobel. I would also love Winfield as the CB - I can’t imagine him with White and the way Winfield could tackle - Holy Cow that would be an elite pairing. Offense is harder - not a lot of guys beat out what we have. Probably Moulds would be #1 and we have had a ton of above average RBs - which lead to nothing in the win column. I would probably look at a Fred Jackson as he would be a great fit. A guy like Eric Woods on the O-line would also fit nicely. The most obvious fill in would be at TE and there is not even a guy to choose during that time.

I already switched to Ossai - no way should we waste a 5th year option on RB. Better Etienne than Harris, but only by a smidge. Both would be wastes to me.

Yep - try that if your a women in the South and see how it works. Southern men are up in arms that someone may suggest that a vaccine must be taken, but god forbid you are transgender or a women - you can even speak to your doctor about certain things unless the men in power allow it. Freedom is funny in how some people in power decide if it impacts them versus women, transgender, people of color - their freedom seems less important.

About time - hope they throw the entire book at him. Wish they could take his past into account - 7 years is not enough for the damage caused. BAC = 0.113 - complete Jackwagon. Hope this speeds up the money to the family.

I’m hoping 0 - with the teams on the schedule give me 17 Sunday 1pm kickoffs. I don’t need the hype and prefer a nice routine. Most likely 4 - with a Thursday, a Sunday night and 2 Monday nighters.

I’ll start with - couldn’t this have been part of at least 2-3 other threads about getting Pitts - like the dumb trading with Atlanta at #4 thread - it surely did not need an additional lamp thread on its own. As stated in other threads: The Bills offense was elite last year and TEs rarely transition to the NFL and make any difference in year 1 or even year 2 - especially highly targeted TE in the top 10. They typically reach JAG level by year 3 after being sub-par for years 1-2. This coaching staff rarely use rookies to a big extent because of analytics suggesting their drop off after 8-9 games - so Bills rookies especially have little to no impact until the second half the season when they start to get limited playing time if they earn it. I doubt Pitts sees the field more than 3-4 plays a game until half way through - where if he earns it - maybe that doubles. I don’t think he sees enough plays to be a difference maker year 1. The Bills offense and Josh Allen have been a WR driven team and we have 4 strong WRs to spread teams out. I am not sure adding Pitts changes that meaning Pitts fills the roll Knox played - H back blocking out of the backfield to provide time and dump off route - which is not the strength and usage you want from Pitts. Cost would be stupid to go get a TE. They bust at a high rate, have a low transition rate to NFL ball, the top tight ends in the league were all later round picks and even UDFAs - there isn’t a TE from top of the first round that is not grouped in with the rest of the average TEs and if you figure you are most likely moving into the top 5 and definitely top 10 - you are giving up #1 and #2 picks (and more) in the next several drafts - plus potentially other young players that teams may covet. in the end I doubt Pitts helps the team mostly because of what you give up and the slow transition. He appears elite, but by the time he is helping your offense - you are getting hurt by the lack of talent created in the lost picks and players. Hard No.

Well - we have more time in FA both before and after the draft, we have the draft, we have Star returning, we have Harrison Phillips returning ( struggled early, but got better as the season progressed), and if needed trades. So no I don’t pin any hopes on Star - I pin my hopes on Beane continuing to work on the roster right up to and in to the season. He will continue to address what he and McD feel the roster needs and we continue to get better with fewer and fewer holes. Currently on the roster you have Star and his back-up in Phillips - plus a guy in Butler that has done 1 technique as needed. I will be worried if we get to late November and we are constantly getting run on and have a losing record, but right now it is not even a hole - just a question mark.

Sorry - that is not at all what they are saying. The study looked at increases seen 2-3 weeks after the game in the community and compared that rate to the same time frame in areas outside of the surrounding stadium as a control. They did not look at numbers and say because this is an NFL city with a game we saw larger numbers. They study is also not saying the game caused the spike they did not come to that conclusion at all because the available data to show causation is not available. What they stated was when looking at the positivity rate in the NFL city and near surrounding areas - where the staff, local workers, and majority of the fans are - they compared the changed rate compared to areas outside the surrounding area. What was noted was that the area around the stadiums that allowed >5000 fans saw an average larger uptick in the positivity rate 2-3 weeks after the game than either other cities that did not allow fans or the surround areas farther away from the stadium. Those increased rates were not there when games without fans were played or the games were on the road. They made a conscious effort to not blame the games as the spread could of been caused (as they state) in pre and post game activity. The area saw a larger increase in people gathering - dinners, tailgating in some cases, hotel stays, bars, use of Uber, use of GrubHub, etc and the link to the increase could just as easily be caused by those variables. The epicenter of the increase was the fans gathering for the game and the link was pretty much undeniable, but the Research team from Alabama was very careful to state they have no way of knowing where the community spread occurred- only that the pattern was repeated over and over - those NFL communities that allowed large number of fans saw these episodic rises that corresponded to the games that were not present at other times.

Just watching when the Bills defense was at its most effective both late last year and in 2018/2019 - the 5th DB needs to be able to cover a TE and still get off blocks to make plays out wide on RBs. Hybrid with size and speed. The Bills were most effective with Milano and Edmunds both over the “A” gaps on either side of the center. 2 DTs (Oliver and probably Obada this year) on the outside shoulder of the guards, and Hughes and Addison at DE. Essentially 6 guys across the line of scrimmage and you bring 5. The 5 remaining DBs need to cover lots of space with WRs and TEs and pick up flaring RBs. They were really good at TEs in 2018 + 2019, but struggled against RBs in screen situations. Last year they were better against the RBs, but the TEs ate them alive. I would love to see that hybrid speed player to fill out the defense and this year with the decrease in talent at TE we will see - the numbers should look better just based on schedule, but that is a critical role that we seem to be missing- especially with Marlowe a FA.

The issue is that the study purposefully says none of that. It goes so far as to say they can not even conclude that the spread occurred within the stadium and did not rule out the pre and post game activities. They also specifically call out that the mortality rate although increased is very difficult to pin to specific dates due to the fact that those rates are not consistent to infection date. Some increases in mortality are seen at 3-4 weeks and other times it is 5-6 weeks or more. I do not read it as a scare tactic or to try and get people in line. The researchers were looking into the gatherings and looking for trends and the trends were fairly limited and obvious. You have large groups coming together - you saw more spread.

I think this all plays into the Bills decision. He was never even close to 100% and you could tell even when they moved him to center - he struggled to pick up guys on his injured side. If you think about what the expected starting line-up was: Dawkins, Spain, Morse, Mongo, Williams and the fact that those 5 guys never played 1 snap together. Then you add in that Ford was #3 guard, Winter (late add) was #4, and Ike was the #5 guard to start the season - the Bills spent a large portion of the late season and playoffs with a #4/5 guard next to Dawkins and a less than 100% Mongo next to Williams - not surprising they had some struggles.

The reason it was not useless is the 2 comments directly after yours - NYT fearporn for a study they were not involved in and did not print and claims there was no spike. The Bills playoff game was safe and could not have lead to a spike. Those two comments are the exact reason it was done and why they did not draw specific conclusions. The games were done in a safe effective manner, but the community and surrounding areas were impacted.

It was not a report - it was a retroactive study and yes that is the conclusion that large gatherings caused increased COVID numbers in the community. The epicenter was looking at NFL games with fans versus without fans and the differences in community spread. Yet people argue still now that it was not an issue. The research team also tried to find if certain protocols were better and limited spread as some games did not show the same increases, but there were not enough common denominators between limited spread and larger spread to say that. The goal was to determine did it have an impact as you would expect it to - even with the protocols in place and where certain protocols more or less effective so in the future you know what might work. That data was inconclusive because without DNA sequencing info - they could not state the spread occurred at the game or in the surrounding community before or after the game due to behaviors (or just dumb luck). In the end - yes it is not real useful because it was just a retroactive data study based upon local, state, and CDC numbers within communities. No one ever said it was more.