RoyBatty is alive Posted April 19, 2021 Posted April 19, 2021 17 hours ago, FireChans said: He’s played more games in the NFL than college at this point. He’s not young. You dont like him I get it but the fact he played more pro games than college is interesting but hardly relevant and is highly selective data on your part to try and prove a point. Sorry, but a 22 year old pro football player by any reasonable definition is "young".
FireChans Posted April 19, 2021 Posted April 19, 2021 2 hours ago, RoyBatty is alive said: You dont like him I get it but the fact he played more pro games than college is interesting but hardly relevant and is highly selective data on your part to try and prove a point. Sorry, but a 22 year old pro football player by any reasonable definition is "young". No it’s really not. A 22 year old rookie and a 22 year old 3 year pro are quite different. This is pretty obvious.
WideNine Posted April 19, 2021 Posted April 19, 2021 I like Fairburn's Bills articles on the Athletic. They have the depth of someone who actually watches the Bills closely not just parroting what others are saying. I recalled that someone asked this same question about investing in locking up Edmunds a while back in his "mailbag" and thought his response mirrors much of what has been said in our own dialogue on this topic. "Right now, I don’t think I would. Of course, the Bills have another year to decide on that. A lot of this will come down to what Edmunds and his agents want that second contract to look like. I don’t think he’s played well enough to warrant a market-setting contract at linebacker. He’s not a consistent game changer in that way, at least not yet. He could become that type of player, but it’s not what we’ve seen so far. If Edmunds looked like he did in the Ravens game more often, it would be an easy choice to sign him to a second contract. But these negotiations could get complicated when you consider that Edmunds’ potential hasn’t matched up with the reality on the field quite often enough. That’s not to say it can’t happen, but you asked me to make the decision today. I’d spend the money elsewhere." So we are back to where Beane probably is sitting... a key year to evaluate Edmunds and determine if he wants to lock him up long term and if so, for how much? 1
GunnerBill Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 12 hours ago, WideNine said: I like Fairburn's Bills articles on the Athletic. They have the depth of someone who actually watches the Bills closely not just parroting what others are saying. I recalled that someone asked this same question about investing in locking up Edmunds a while back in his "mailbag" and thought his response mirrors much of what has been said in our own dialogue on this topic. "Right now, I don’t think I would. Of course, the Bills have another year to decide on that. A lot of this will come down to what Edmunds and his agents want that second contract to look like. I don’t think he’s played well enough to warrant a market-setting contract at linebacker. He’s not a consistent game changer in that way, at least not yet. He could become that type of player, but it’s not what we’ve seen so far. If Edmunds looked like he did in the Ravens game more often, it would be an easy choice to sign him to a second contract. But these negotiations could get complicated when you consider that Edmunds’ potential hasn’t matched up with the reality on the field quite often enough. That’s not to say it can’t happen, but you asked me to make the decision today. I’d spend the money elsewhere." So we are back to where Beane probably is sitting... a key year to evaluate Edmunds and determine if he wants to lock him up long term and if so, for how much? So I still think Beane and McDermott are probably more sold than Matt Fairburn. I am all but certain they will pick up the option and of course this year is big for the evaluation of Edmunds going forward. While I agree with what Fairburn says - Edmunds has not been a consistent game changer to the extent that he deserves a top of the market contract - I suspect as we sit here today the Bills would lean more towards signing him. I don't think the extension is a done deal in quite the way I think the 5th year option is, but I would be inclined to still say it is more likely than not at this stage. I have said it repeatedly throughout this thread - I think when you listen to what the regime said about Tremaine over the course of and at the end of last season they are much more sold on him than fans and media.
machine gun kelly Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 For those who are not convinced yet, the Bills have the 5th year option at $12 mil. If they choose, and could even tag him the next year. He’s still on his rookie contract. Personally, I would place the 5th year option on him, see how he does with whoever we draft and not injured see what happens. It really doesn’t matter what we think. It matters what Frazier, McD, and Beane thinks. It’s my guess they see what they want out of him and he’s going to probably get either an extension or the option thrown on him.
jletha Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 15 hours ago, WideNine said: I like Fairburn's Bills articles on the Athletic. They have the depth of someone who actually watches the Bills closely not just parroting what others are saying. I recalled that someone asked this same question about investing in locking up Edmunds a while back in his "mailbag" and thought his response mirrors much of what has been said in our own dialogue on this topic. "Right now, I don’t think I would. Of course, the Bills have another year to decide on that. A lot of this will come down to what Edmunds and his agents want that second contract to look like. I don’t think he’s played well enough to warrant a market-setting contract at linebacker. He’s not a consistent game changer in that way, at least not yet. He could become that type of player, but it’s not what we’ve seen so far. If Edmunds looked like he did in the Ravens game more often, it would be an easy choice to sign him to a second contract. But these negotiations could get complicated when you consider that Edmunds’ potential hasn’t matched up with the reality on the field quite often enough. That’s not to say it can’t happen, but you asked me to make the decision today. I’d spend the money elsewhere." So we are back to where Beane probably is sitting... a key year to evaluate Edmunds and determine if he wants to lock him up long term and if so, for how much? But why couldnt Edmunds sign a contract that matches his production on the field. If he wants a market-setting contract, its an easy NO. If he wants a reasonable contract given his good-not-great play thats a different story. It seems the discussion on Edmunds is whether hes worth a BIG contract but why is it assumed we, or someone else, would ever give him such a contract?
SoCal Deek Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 This is his year, but it probably depends more on what happens in front of him than it does anything else. The rub on Edmunds is that without a solid NT in front of him he’s forced to fend off O Linemen. His body type (tall and lean) is the worst possible for those matchups. Unfortunately it is what it is Tremaine, if you can’t adjust your playing style it’s not going to happen. 3
soflabillsfan1 Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 I'd pay him the 5th year option and if his play stays the same, kick him to the curb. He's not worth a big extension.
NewEra Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 2 hours ago, jletha said: But why couldnt Edmunds sign a contract that matches his production on the field. If he wants a market-setting contract, its an easy NO. If he wants a reasonable contract given his good-not-great play thats a different story. It seems the discussion on Edmunds is whether hes worth a BIG contract but why is it assumed we, or someone else, would ever give him such a contract? Nothing is stopping him from that but he’s most likely to sign the biggest contract offered to him.
WideNine Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 6 hours ago, GunnerBill said: So I still think Beane and McDermott are probably more sold than Matt Fairburn. I am all but certain they will pick up the option and of course this year is big for the evaluation of Edmunds going forward. While I agree with what Fairburn says - Edmunds has not been a consistent game changer to the extent that he deserves a top of the market contract - I suspect as we sit here today the Bills would lean more towards signing him. I don't think the extension is a done deal in quite the way I think the 5th year option is, but I would be inclined to still say it is more likely than not at this stage. I have said it repeatedly throughout this thread - I think when you listen to what the regime said about Tremaine over the course of and at the end of last season they are much more sold on him than fans and media. I definitely think Beane would do the 5th year option. Like most GMs he would not want a 1st round swing and a miss and will give Edmunds every chance to play up to expectations. It will come down to price on a contract. Beane will have a number in his head that he won't be pushed over. He will bring in competition for negotiation leverage and to light a fire under Edmunds. It seems to be their MO.
BADOLBILZ Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, GunnerBill said: So I still think Beane and McDermott are probably more sold than Matt Fairburn. I am all but certain they will pick up the option and of course this year is big for the evaluation of Edmunds going forward. While I agree with what Fairburn says - Edmunds has not been a consistent game changer to the extent that he deserves a top of the market contract - I suspect as we sit here today the Bills would lean more towards signing him. I don't think the extension is a done deal in quite the way I think the 5th year option is, but I would be inclined to still say it is more likely than not at this stage. I have said it repeatedly throughout this thread - I think when you listen to what the regime said about Tremaine over the course of and at the end of last season they are much more sold on him than fans and media. Seeing that the 5th year option value with 2 Pro Bowls = the franchise tag value.............I think it would be illogical for the Bills to pick up the option. That's a huge amount of injury risk for what would only amount to a "vote of confidence". Just let him play it out..........dangle the UFA carrot.........and make him EARN that $15M 2022 tag rather than just picking up the option for $15M now. Edited April 20, 2021 by BADOLBILZ
GunnerBill Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 5 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: Seeing that the 5th year option value with 2 Pro Bowls = the franchise tag value.............I think it would be illogical for the Bills to pick up the option. That's a huge amount of injury risk for what would only amount to a "vote of confidence". Just let him play it out..........dangle the UFA carrot.........and make him EARN that $15M 2022 tag rather than just picking up the option for $15M now. I see your logic. Not what I expect them to do though. 1 1
BADOLBILZ Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: I see your logic. Not what I expect them to do though. I suspect they will too...........but as you know I generally am skeptical of their motives because so much of their success has only come after first blundering. I hope they are smarter than that..........it's simple dollars and sense.
NewEra Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 2 hours ago, Rock-A-Bye Beasley said: Incorrect. He was selected to one pro bowl. And played in another as an alternate which doesn’t count for these purposes. His 5th year option would be 12.7 million 23 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: Seeing that the 5th year option value with 2 Pro Bowls = the franchise tag value.............I think it would be illogical for the Bills to pick up the option. That's a huge amount of injury risk for what would only amount to a "vote of confidence". Just let him play it out..........dangle the UFA carrot.........and make him EARN that $15M 2022 tag rather than just picking up the option for $15M now. So which is it? One guy says he only counts for 1 pro bowl. One guy says it’s 2. Links anyone? It’s a big difference
Rock-A-Bye Beasley Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 4 minutes ago, NewEra said: So which is it? One guy says he only counts for 1 pro bowl. One guy says it’s 2. Links anyone? It’s a big difference https://overthecap.com/fifth-year-option-projections/ “One Pro Bowl: Players who are named to exactly one Pro Bowl on the original ballot (not as an alternate) will be eligible for a fifth year base salary equal to the transition tender at their position. Multiple Pro Bowls: Players who are named to two or three Pro Bowls on the original ballot (not as an alternate) will be eligible for a fifth year base salary equal to the franchise tender at their position. “ I believe Edmunds was an alternate one year and original ballot this past season.
WideNine Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 (edited) 7 minutes ago, NewEra said: So which is it? One guy says he only counts for 1 pro bowl. One guy says it’s 2. Links anyone? It’s a big difference It's 2.... 2019-20 season (I believe as an alternate to Hightower) and last season. Just saw "Rock-A-Bye Beasley" beat me to it and clarified what the alternate status means to the calculation Edited April 20, 2021 by WideNine 1
Shaw66 Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 30 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said: Seeing that the 5th year option value with 2 Pro Bowls = the franchise tag value.............I think it would be illogical for the Bills to pick up the option. That's a huge amount of injury risk for what would only amount to a "vote of confidence". Just let him play it out..........dangle the UFA carrot.........and make him EARN that $15M 2022 tag rather than just picking up the option for $15M now. Excellent point. It all depends on what McBeane think of him now. If they think he's the guy for the future, they extend him. I'd they aren't sure, they let him play year four without exercising, and then decide. With Allen they will extend. With Lawson they didn't exercise the option. Those are probably the two choices.
NewEra Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, WideNine said: It's 2.... 2019-20 season (I believe as an alternate to Hightower) and last season. Just saw "Rock-A-Bye Beasley" beat me to it. You and @Rock-A-Bye Beasleysaid two different things. According to him, it’s 1 according to you, it’s 2 alternates don’t count. Original ballot only. Looks like he’s due 12M Edited April 20, 2021 by NewEra
GunnerBill Posted April 20, 2021 Posted April 20, 2021 2 minutes ago, Rock-A-Bye Beasley said: https://overthecap.com/fifth-year-option-projections/ “One Pro Bowl: Players who are named to exactly one Pro Bowl on the original ballot (not as an alternate) will be eligible for a fifth year base salary equal to the transition tender at their position. Multiple Pro Bowls: Players who are named to two or three Pro Bowls on the original ballot (not as an alternate) will be eligible for a fifth year base salary equal to the franchise tender at their position. “ I believe Edmunds was an alternate one year and original ballot this past season. He was which is ironic because he was more deserving of recognition in 2019 than 2020. 1
Recommended Posts