Richard Noggin

I'll bet there is data out there to support or refute this observation. Not data I'M gonna track down, mind you.

Fun to see Edmunds play downhill. He had a pop to his game we don't get to see much. Next step: do it against quality competition.

Happy to admit Edmunds deserves recognition for his aggressive, impactful play today. Reeeaaally need to see that same approach next week. Especially in Milano's potential absence. How I wish this was a regular performance for Tremaine. Let's hope it becomes the norm.

It's Jordan-esque

How about this olive branch? (For context, I'm the type of Bills fan who sees the glass as half full as long as specific players give me any glimpses to do so. I'm usually reluctant to jump off any Bills player's bandwagon, and my default setting is one of hope and support.) I think Edmunds MUST do good things in pass coverage, in his zone drops, that fit what McD's looking for in that aspect of the game (and that we can't always see or demonstrate as fans and 3rd party analysts). And so it's possible that Tremaine Edmunds is some new kind of MLB who is actually more of a S in that he excels dropping, backing up, moving laterally, and taking away plays for which there isn't always evidence of success. There are current players who suggest that a modern-day MLB can in fact impact plays BOTH as a more passive pass defender AND as a downhill attacker (I can think of a few, and likely so can you), but maybe (?) what Tremaine does well is more important as the NFL progresses as a pass-first league? That being said, there is NO way Edmunds has earned an elite payday. He just hasn't. That doesn't mean he's garbage, that doesn't mean he's a bust. But to pay him what the market will likely dictate seems like lunacy to me. His passive and quiet trickle-down effectiveness against the pass cannot justify big, long-term dollars. We can't lose sight of the big picture here.

Fair enough.

He showed up against the Seahawks on the road in primetime, IIRC. Defenses like ours, and theirs at the time, can be carved up by composed, confident QB play (pass rush being the x-factor, of course). He played great in his 1.5 games this season. The dude can play good ball under controlled circumstances. Doesn't beat himself against more disciplined, passive Ds, like ours. Totally agree that he's not the guy to lift a team against superior competition, when it's on him. But as an effective cog in a complimentary gameplan...he's above serviceable-level. (I'm not some Tyrod apologist. No way. I was super glad when the Bills moved on. But the guy can be an effective QB in a system designed to accentuate his strengths.)

I'm not suggesting TE was the reason Heinecke scored on that scramble, but I AM suggesting he failed to come off his coverage responsibility even as the QB crossed the LOS and advanced the ball. I'm suggesting TE is often hesitant and late to react and therefore does not make plays outside the scope of his prescribed responsibilities. Which means he is just a talented chess piece who only impacts plays in a passive way, if at all.

On that QB TD run to the right Edmunds was still bizarrely GIVING GROUND in the endzone (adhering to his pass coverage responsibility like a good boy) while Heinecke was already advancing the ball upfield toward the right pylon. It was crazy how late he finally planted a damned foot in the ground and moved toward the actual threat. Does anyone else recall that slow-mo replay? I try to be objective on TE, but that play was just mystifying. WTF was he doing staying back WELL after the QB broke the line of scrimmage? I cannot reconcile that play, and I'm afraid it's representative of his passive play in general.

For a plant that isn't performance enhancing and IS legal in many states? Yeah! Get him!

Well I mentioned it because he was playing effective, elusive, and composed QB prior to his injury. Obviously I missed the memo on his IR status so yeah, it's a complete non-issue this week. So there. My bad.

Thanks. I was admittedly too lazy or detached to look it up. Hence the crazy spread, I guess.

Looks like I'm in the minority thinking the Texans play above their talent level. If Tyrod plays, I'm legitimately nervous that our defense sees its first ugly game. If not, I still think they are stouter than anyone is admitting. But still, Bills by a million.

This is really the most objective, contextually-salient take I've read on Edmunds's value beyond his 5th year option, IMHO. The analogy with Taylor is sound with respect to cap allocations and relative value. (Side note: Taylor scares me if he's healthy next week. More than facing Edmunds ever would.)

It's not about credibility of the source you're sharing. I just think it's helpful and more interesting when the OP contains some thoughts from, in this case, you, that then compels me to click on a link contained therein. No big deal.

I'm sorry to cast aspersions on someone so...admired by you. Sincerely.

6, 1, and 5 as top three. I'm sure 2 ends up mattering more than it should. I sure hope 11 doesn't actually matter, although ***leaning in conspiratorially*** maybe it provides an excuse to early-season yips?

The McCaffrey/Smith interview, part one, was interesting on that angle. That Broncos team back in the 90s had some athletic overachievers who improved athletically late in their careers (Romanowski, of course, a documented pharma-cheater, but also McCaffrey, who was not nearly the same specimen early in his career as he was late....even the "supplement" regimens they both designed for their children are eerily similar and suspect). In the interview McCaffrey even alluded to his father's legacy of finding any advantage, which is thinly veiled code, oftentimes, used by athletes who expertly game their sport's testing protocols. Along with the spartan childhood nutrition reference, and what we've previously learned about their insane family "supplement" regimens, PLUS CMC's admission that he was never the biggest or fastest, and now his increasing injury history...it all screams banned substances to me. A young athlete who, despite genetic gifts and nurtured training habits, possessed less-than-elite NFL physical traits without a little "help." Who is now having difficulty holding up under the strain of a physically demanding game. At least that's the theory. I don't trust the legacy of those two championship Broncos teams (minus the Shanahan zone scheme...that schitt's legit).

Why, is he not okay? (better as an earlier reply, no doubt)

might explain the bloodshot eyes.

He didn't play well enough to win in week one. He played well enough to win in week two. And, of course, he can play much better than that, and will need to eventually for this team to reach its goal of a championship.

If you banned the word "what" from Aikman's vocabulary, he'd be lost. "The Texans are playing at a faster pace than WHAT the Panthers are." Not only was he actually wrong in this instance, but he uses this wordy comparison structure including the unnecessary and awkward WHAT several times a quarter, and has been for YEARS. Aikman seems like a stiff alien piloting a human body.

There has to be metrics to support this assertion, right? Not that I question your acumen (you're savvier than most). But I've yet to see concrete evidence.

I want to believe the bolded. It's the most logical explanation now in year four of the unquestioned (by the coaches) Edmunds MLB era. Problem is, it's REALLY difficult for me to definitively discern this as a fan. Analytics certainly don't capture his value as a passing game defender/deterrent. Not that stats can capture all the nuances of such a dynamic, interrelated sport. So how do we KNOW Edmunds IS actually effective in this role? Like Agent Mulder, I want to believe.

There is no title until one clicks on it. While I agree that this is not a sensationalized, superficial piece of sports reportage, the OP's approach of just dropping a link without comment except to invite the anticipated engagement, is, in fact, clickbaiting.