Picking up Edmunds Option a Rare Beane Mistake

[YattaOkasan]

15 minutes ago, Simon said:

It may be 50/50 by teams, but there are individuals who excel in that area because of how they see the game. Some guys just recognize before others when the ball is going to come out, or what angle at which it's going to hit the turf and bounce or when they can handle it with a scoop or need to get down on it because somebody else is closing behind them, etc.

I just don’t know that this can be proven. Is there anything to support. All the other data suggests it’s random. 

[Simon]

2 minutes ago, YattaOkasan said:

I just don’t know that this can be proven. Is there anything to support. All the other data suggests it’s random. 

It's not something you calculate, I think it's just something you see.

[YattaOkasan]

8 minutes ago, Simon said:

It's not something you calculate, I think it's just something you see.

Would like some data. However, I am arguing there are things about Edmunds we’re not seeing; though I am using facts to support.  I wait for PFF up to come up with a metric 😅

[Simon]

6 minutes ago, YattaOkasan said:

Would like some data. However, I am arguing there are things about Edmunds we’re not seeing; though I am using facts to support.  I wait for PFF up to come up with a metric 😅

Not everything can be quantified; at least in a manner which we're capable of understanding.

 

As for Edmunds, he's just sort of OK at everything. Aside from the occasional play where he looks sort of silly, he does an adequate job with most of his responsibilities. I don't think he's near as good an athlete as everybody wants to give him credit for, nor do I think he's a glaring hole in the Bills D.

I just don't want to see us lose a really good player (Poyer, Oliver, Dawkins, etc) because we decided to tie up a bunch of cap space on a guy who can be replaced by a cheaper player who is just.....OK.

[Southern_Bills]

2 hours ago, eball said:

 

I’ve come to the conclusion that Edmunds is a pretty good LB who works well within the Buffalo defense.  Is that the guy I want to pay top-5 LB money to when his contract expires?  Nope.  But he’s also not JAG.  The retention of Milano last offseason looks more and more like the steal of the offseason.  If they both stay healthy the Bills’ D will be just fine.

 

 

One of the most accurate statements about Edmunds. He doesn't have to be Ray Lewis.

[YattaOkasan]

5 minutes ago, Simon said:

Not everything can be quantified; at least in a manner which we're capable of understanding.

 

As for Edmunds, he's just sort of OK at everything. Aside from the occasional play where he looks sort of silly, he does an adequate job with most of his responsibilities. I don't think he's near as good an athlete as everybody wants to give him credit for, nor do I think he's a glaring hole in the Bills D.

I just don't want to see us lose a really good player (Poyer, Oliver, Dawkins, etc) because we decided to tie up a bunch of cap space on a guy who can be replaced by a cheaper player who is just.....OK.

I feel very confident beane has a path for keeping all these players (Dawkins and Poyer have been extended already) whether it includes edmunds or not. 

[BillsLux]

For Tremaine defenders,  I beg you to spend some time during the next game to really concentrate on watching him.  He rarely gets off a block, he never makes a stop on a runner coming at him, and the most potent plays opposing teams have against us is a crossing pattern in front of him.

 

The argument that our middle linebackers role to free up Milano is tough to take seriously. We have Star up the middle who eats up space so linebackers can make plays, and now I'm supposed to believe that we have a middle linebacker whose roll is to allow Milano to make plays.

 

The problem is that he might be tall and he might be fast in the 100 yard dash, but he look doesn't look at all quick or shifty.

[Coach Tuesday]

2 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

No.

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2004/guest-column-turnovers-and-unpredictability-defense

I’ve read that article before, but I went back and read it more closely tonight after you linked to it.

 

I’m no statistician but it strikes me as problematic.  If I understand correctly what he’s done, he’s measured teams over two-year periods to look for correlation between what he calls “drive rate” (which appears to be some kind of accumulation of points, yards and turnovers per drive) and measured each to test whether forced turnovers correlate to drive rate.  He concludes that the variance/unpredictability of defensive turnovers between years 1 and 2 demonstrates that turnovers are “random,” because “if a particular measure closely represents actual ability, then that stat will hold relatively consistent from one year to the next.”

 

The data set may be flawed - 2 years is both too short, in that there may not be enough turnovers to measure correlation, and too long, in that - as he notes - teams change out players every year.  
 

But also, I just don’t understand how he gets to his conclusion that a high variance from year 1 to year 2 means it’s random.  There could be a multitude of factors explaining the discrepancy; there could be some additional factor he’s not accounting for, etc.  He never fully explains it other than to say, “by far the least predictable of these drive rate stats is the defensive turnover per drive rate. This suggests that defenses have relatively little persistent ability to force turnovers.”  Does it?  Couldn’t it mean that defenses that fail to produce turnovers might excel at other things resulting in “successful” drive rates (however he’s measuring it), such as keeping the play in front of them and making tackles (Jauron Ball)?  Maybe forcing and recovering fumbles is really hard, and a great defense that fails to force a fumble on second down is able to get a drive-ending sack on third down instead.  We need more information and analysis than what he’s put forth in this article.
 

And finally, he concludes by remarking, “Whether there are some individual players with a special ability to force turnovers significantly above average rates would be an interesting subject for further study.”  Note that if this is a possibility, the converse is also possible: perhaps there are some individual players with a below-average ability to cause turnovers.

 

Which brings us full-circle…

Edited September 28, 2021 by Coach Tuesday

[Southern_Bills]

14 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

You also aren’t paying him 13-15 million per year when in all likelihood the defense doesn’t miss a beat with his replacement making less than half that amount…. 

 

I'm not aware of anyone, and I mean anyone, advocating for top 3 LB money for Edmunds. 

 

Perhaps I've missed that conversation or it's just something are thinking up in there head, who knows.

[GoBills808]

15 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

I’ve read that article before, but I went back and read it more closely tonight after you linked to it.

 

I’m no statistician but it strikes me as problematic.  If I understand correctly what he’s done, he’s measured teams over two-year periods to look for correlation between what he calls “drive rate” (which appears to be some kind of accumulation of points, yards and turnovers per drive) and measured each to test whether forced turnovers correlate to drive rate.  He concludes that the variance/unpredictability of defensive turnovers between years 1 and 2 demonstrates that turnovers are “random,” because “if a particular measure closely represents actual ability, then that stat will hold relatively consistent from one year to the next.”

 

The data set may be flawed - 2 years is both too short, in that there may not be enough turnovers to measure correlation, and too long, in that - as he notes - teams change out players every year.  
 

But also, I just don’t understand how he gets to his conclusion that a high variance from year 1 to year 2 means it’s random.  There could be a multitude of factors explaining the discrepancy; there could be some additional factor he’s not accounting for, etc.  He never fully explains it other than to say, “by far the least predictable of these drive rate stats is the defensive turnover per drive rate. This suggests that defenses have relatively little persistent ability to force turnovers.”  Does it?  Couldn’t it mean that defenses that fail to produce turnovers might excel at other things resulting in “successful” drive rates (however he’s measuring it), such as keeping the play in front of them and making tackles (Jauron Ball)?  Maybe forcing and recovering fumbles is really hard, and a great defense that fails to force a fumble on second down is able to get a drive-ending sack on third down instead.  We need more information and analysis than what he’s put forth in this article.
 

And finally, he concludes by remarking, “Whether there are some individual players with a special ability to force turnovers significantly above average rates would be an interesting subject for further study.”  Note that if this is a possibility, the converse is also possible: perhaps there are some individual players with a below-average ability to cause turnovers.

 

Which brings us full-circle…

 

22 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

I’ve read that article before, but I went back and read it more closely tonight after you linked to it.

 

I’m no statistician but it strikes me as problematic.  If I understand correctly what he’s done, he’s measured teams over two-year periods to look for correlation between what he calls “drive rate” (which appears to be some kind of accumulation of points, yards and turnovers per drive) and measured each to test whether forced turnovers correlate to drive rate.  He concludes that the variance/unpredictability of defensive turnovers between years 1 and 2 demonstrates that turnovers are “random,” because “if a particular measure closely represents actual ability, then that stat will hold relatively consistent from one year to the next.”

 

The data set may be flawed - 2 years is both too short, in that there may not be enough turnovers to measure correlation, and too long, in that - as he notes - teams change out players every year.  
 

But also, I just don’t understand how he gets to his conclusion that a high variance from year 1 to year 2 means it’s random.  There could be a multitude of factors explaining the discrepancy; there could be some additional factor he’s not accounting for, etc.  He never fully explains it other than to say, “by far the least predictable of these drive rate stats is the defensive turnover per drive rate. This suggests that defenses have relatively little persistent ability to force turnovers.”  Does it?  Couldn’t it mean that defenses that fail to produce turnovers might excel at other things resulting in “successful” drive rates (however he’s measuring it), such as keeping the play in front of them and making tackles (Jauron Ball)?  Maybe forcing and recovering fumbles is really hard, and a great defense that fails to force a fumble on second down is able to get a drive-ending sack on third down instead.  We need more information and analysis than what he’s put forth in this article.
 

And finally, he concludes by remarking, “Whether there are some individual players with a special ability to force turnovers significantly above average rates would be an interesting subject for further study.”  Note that if this is a possibility, the converse is also possible: perhaps there are some individual players with a below-average ability to cause turnovers.

 

Which brings us full-circle…

It's not two years, its two year increments over six years. That's 155 pairs of consecutive team-seasons, or 310 individual data points.

[BADOLBILZ]

2 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

So he must have the most forced fumbles of all time then…

 

Tillman has forced the most fumbles by a back 7 player since it became a stat, which is what we are talking about, yes.

 

The technique that White used to cause that fumble Sunday is named after him for a reason.

 

[BillsFan130]

Edmunds is definitely a polarizing player to say the least lol, 23 pages and counting.

 

For me, I can't say I'm a big fan of him.

 

Thought he was really good in 2019.

 

Thought he struggled pretty badly last year. (although injuries played a role)

 

And this year I think he played well week 1, and didn't play very well the past 2 games.

 

In saying all of this, I can't blame Beane picking up his 5th year option. He has shown he can be the guy, I just don't think he's done it consistently enough. 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by BillsFan130

[GoBills808]

12 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Tillman has forced the most fumbles by a back 7 player since it became a stat, which is what we are talking about, yes.

 

The technique that White used to cause that fumble Sunday is named after him for a reason.

 

Actually we were talking about fumble RECOVERIES, but since you insist: guess who has more forced fumbles on a per game basis, Tremaine Edmunds or Matt Milano?   😂😂😂

 

Look if you guys want to believe in things that don't exist, go ahead. There is no data to suggest that fumble recoveries are anything other than random.

 

[Thurman#1]

9 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

He did not “blanket” anything.  They were coached yesterday to take away Heineken Light’s first read.  Edmunds on that play is shading to the inside bracket of the first read.  He literally takes like three steps to his left.  Tre White clone?  It’s hardly an example of a game-changing play, it’s just good well-coached team defense.  

Meanwhile Milano recovered another fumble yesterday…

 

 

He absolutely did blanket that route. What he did is the definition of blanketing. Blanketing is simply covering something very well. That's what Edmunds did. The fact that you're denying it says more about how desperate you are to find negatives about Edmunds than it does about his play. Heinicke wanted to go there. The reason he didn't is that the route had been very effectively covered. Blanketed.

 

When they cut back at the end as the ball goes towards the INT you can see that Edmunds is still about a yard away from Humphries, even as his focus flows towards the side of the field the ball is headed towards.

 

As for the rest of it, you are guessing. What we know is that he covered a zone, but that he very quickly got to just the right spot. This likely came about through a ton of film study, through listening to good coaching, to his instincts in coverage and to an excellent grasp of what Washington was doing on the play and an understanding of what his part was in thwarting them. Not to mention being 6'5" with an 83-inch wingspan, a silhouette that makes QBs sweat at the idea of throwing near.

 

He's a really good coverage defender, and this was an example of him doing everything right, and of good team defense, and of Edmunds doing his job beautifully, which forced a longer time in the pocket, which allowed the Bills to make a big play.

[BADOLBILZ]

12 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Actually we were talking about fumble RECOVERIES, but since you insist: guess who has more forced fumbles on a per game basis, Tremaine Edmunds or Matt Milano?   😂😂😂

 

Look if you guys want to believe in things that don't exist, go ahead. There is no data to suggest that fumble recoveries are anything other than random.

 

 

Yuck it up Mr. "nobody understands statistics like me".

 

Tremaine Edmunds has played about 400 more defensive snaps in his career than Matt Milano. 😙

 

That's about the equivalent of 6 more full games of snaps.

 

Not remembering that Milano has missed A LOT of time over his career shows a real lack of awareness on your part..........uninstinctive posting.

 

Milano has come away with 12 turnovers in less snaps than Edmunds has taken to produce just 3.  

 

Keep thinking that all turnovers are random though...........turnover differential is arguably the most decisive team stat in the NFL so I guess winning is random as well. 

 

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, BillsLux said:

For Tremaine defenders,  I beg you to spend some time during the next game to really concentrate on watching him.  He rarely gets off a block, he never makes a stop on a runner coming at him, and the most potent plays opposing teams have against us is a crossing pattern in front of him.

 

The argument that our middle linebackers role to free up Milano is tough to take seriously. We have Star up the middle who eats up space so linebackers can make plays, and now I'm supposed to believe that we have a middle linebacker whose roll is to allow Milano to make plays.

 

The problem is that he might be tall and he might be fast in the 100 yard dash, but he look doesn't look at all quick or shifty.

 

 

We have watched. What you have there is not particularly correct. He often makes stops on runners. Do the runners generally try to run away from Tremaine? Yes, they do, it's their nature to run to holes if they can, but he fills holes and makes tackles plenty.

 

Fair enough that he doesn't look quick or shifty. Tall guys with long legs rarely do. But the facts show that however he looks, he actually is extremely athletic. His scores show that, as NewEra displayed above. I would agree with you this far, when he has to reverse field, he looks a bit awkward, but he put himself in the right place often enough that you rarely see him reversing field.

[Thurman#1]

27 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

Yuck it up Mr. "nobody understands statistics like me".

 

Tremaine Edmunds has played about 400 more defensive snaps in his career than Matt Milano. 😙

 

That's about the equivalent of 6 more full games of snaps.

 

Not remembering that Milano has missed A LOT of time over his career shows a real lack of awareness on your part..........uninstinctive posting.

 

Milano has come away with 12 turnovers in less snaps than Edmunds has taken to produce just 3.  

 

Keep thinking that all turnovers are random though...........turnover differential is arguably the most decisive team stat in the NFL so I guess winning is random as well. 

 

 

 

Typical. When there's no reasonable argument to be made, pull a quick switch, insert a straw man and pretend you're arguing with what he actually said.

 

Remind us, with your arguments about turnover differential, did he ever say that turnovers are random? Yeah, the answer to that is "No." Wouldn't make sense to. Interceptions are anything but random. Nor is causing fumbles. What is pretty close to random is who recovers them. 

 

Having disposed of your first straw man, let's proceed to the second. Did he say that recovering fumbles was evenly distributed among all players based on number of snaps? Because if he had, you certainly polished off that argument very well. Thing is, that's not what he said.

 

I wouldn't go quite so far as random myself, not on the player vs. player level. Some positions get more, some get less, those are facts. On the team level, yeah, the stats show that offense/defense recoveries go pretty close to 50:50. On the player vs. player level, though, yeah, it's wildly affected by luck, by how close you are, by direction you're going, by the bounce, and so on. That will - duh - not result in recoveries being spread out evenly across the roster based on number of snaps. That's not how randomness works.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Thurman#1

[Norcalbillsfan]

On 9/26/2021 at 9:14 PM, NewEra said:

Regarding Edmunds, I agree 💯

 

I think the premise of people “turning on Josh” is a bit overstated.  He had one of the best years in league history last season.  Going from what we saw last season to what we saw week 1 and 2  caught the entire fan base (and media) off guard.  He IS our franchise.  We talked about him not playing well but I can’t recall anyone turning on 

"If Allen Plays Like Crap This Week, Accept that He's Simply Not Good

Wednesday at 07:43 AM 

 

It was literally a thread, and quite a few people agreed lol. But I do admit many people were just worried, most weren't grabbing pitch forks.

[Norcalbillsfan]

23 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

Having just rewatched the game a couple hours ago, Edmunds was seemingly responsible for a large chunk of Washington's passing yardage. The secondary did their job, the d-line did their job, Milano did his job. When Washington moved the ball it was typically because Edmunds was covering grass or moving a split second too late.

 

 

I'm saying his weaknesses are so easily exploitable that teams who know how to attack him can erase his positive attributes and move the ball at will. He is lucky to be playing in front of an elite secondary and behind a much improved front four. That makes it easier to hide his flaws.

Thank you, I thought I was the only one that noticed him covering grass on large chunk plays. But to me the biggest frustration is as a MLB getting absolutely put on roller skates on screen plays by an open feild block by slow lineman or tight ends. 

And many seem to forget how exploitable he his when Milano wasn't on the feild last year, the LB core without Milano got diced up in short passing.

[NewEra]

19 minutes ago, Norcalbillsfan said:

"If Allen Plays Like Crap This Week, Accept that He's Simply Not Good

Wednesday at 07:43 AM 

 

It was literally a thread, and quite a few people agreed lol. But I do admit many people were just worried, most weren't grabbing pitch forks.

Yeah.  It was a thread started by filthybeast.  I didn’t think that counted. One person “agreed” with the OP.  Guess who?  The one and only.  I don’t think anyone turned.  Fans are emotional filthy beasts.