Per Shefty - Bills “expected to lose” Poyer and Edmunds

[kota]

Nobody saw the bills getting Von Either.  its whatever.  the so called insiders are basically a joke nowadays.

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, ngbills said:

Not saying I would resign both. But it is naive to think we can just replace them with anyone and not take a step backward. It could happen but wouldn't assume it does. 

 

What is funny - if you criticize McD many point to all the playoffs, w/l record, etc. Individual events are ignored for the whole picture. But with Edmunds (and Poyer to lessor degree) the logic doesn't apply? They played important positions in a top ranked defense. Shouldnt they get credit for that? 

 

 

You're absolutely right. 

 

And there really are people on here who ignore it and are happy about this. Somewhat nutty people, but they're here and they're loud.

 

Losing either will be a blow. Losing both will seriously set this defense back. For a while. They'll be replaced, and Beane will do a good job, but being in a system for so long has benefits that won't be found in their replacements for a while in terms of instincts and understanding. 

 

People are going to be confused about how come we're allowing so many passes to the middle of the field.

[3rdand12]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

You're absolutely right. 

 

And there really are people on here who ignore it and are happy about this. Somewhat nutty people, but they're here and they're loud.

 

Losing either will be a blow. Losing both will seriously set this defense back. For a while. They'll be replaced, and Beane will do a good job, but being in a system for so long has benefits that won't be found in their replacements for a while in terms of instincts and understanding. 

 

People are going to be confused about how come we're allowing so many passes to the middle of the field.

Dont be so fearful of change.

 Its a critical part of growing.
Coaching will adjust. Thats what we pay them for lol
Change is a constant in the NFL. and often times in Life

 Embrace it and the challenge it brings

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, Rico said:

Guess Edmunds should’ve made some plays.

 

 

Guess people should have noticed when he did. But many didn't.

 

Again, when Edmunds was on the field this year we were  the #4 pass defense. When he was off the field, #27.

 

That Vikings game was when it really showed. The D was playing really well. Tremaine got injured and after that the whole D was really bad. The difference was stark.

 

 

5 minutes ago, 3rdand12 said:

Dont be so fearful of change.

 Its a critical part of growing.
Coaching will adjust. Thats what we pay them for lol
Change is a constant in the NFL. and often times in Life

 Embrace it and the challenge it brings

 

 

I'm not fearful of change. But I'm also not a dullard. Some changes work out really well. Others cause huge problems and reduce efficiency and performance.

 

Denying that change often causes major regression is ignoring reality.

 

The reason that Tremaine and Poyer have a chance to make huge bucks is real simple. They're extremely good players. And Edmunds is both really realy good and really young. Losing a player like that is a huge blow. They'll be replaced (assuming they are actually leaving). It is likely to cause regression, particularly early, but really lasting a while.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Thurman#1

[BillsFanForever19]

Anyone who thought we had a better shot at getting Edmunds back than Poyer doenn't know what gets people PAID in Free Agency.

 

Those things are youth, experience while being young, a clean bill of health, production on winning teams, pro bowls, draft pedigree, measurements, and athleticism that can translate to different schemes.

 

Edmunds checks every. single. box. And when it comes to his age to experience (5 year vet at age 24) - it's completely unheard of.

 

Regardless of how posters feel about him around here, he's going to get paid. Wouldn't at all be shocked to see him being handed the highest contract for an Inside Linebacker in NFL history.

Edited March 9, 2023 by BillsFanForever19

[BillsFan130]

17 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

You're absolutely right. 

 

And there really are people on here who ignore it and are happy about this. Somewhat nutty people, but they're here and they're loud.

 

Losing either will be a blow. Losing both will seriously set this defense back. For a while. They'll be replaced, and Beane will do a good job, but being in a system for so long has benefits that won't be found in their replacements for a while in terms of instincts and understanding. 

 

People are going to be confused about how come we're allowing so many passes to the middle of the field.

Honest question though.

 

Can the bills defence be any worse in their last 3 playoff losses? 
 

What is the point In paying him 18 mil a year so our defence is better in the regular season?

 

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by BillsFan130

[3rdand12]

1 minute ago, BillsFanForever19 said:

Anyone who thought we had a better shot at getting Edmunds back than Poyer don't know what gets people PAID in Free Agency.

 

Those things are youth, experience while being young, a clean bill of health, production on winning teams, pro bowls, pedigree, measurements, and athleticism that can translate.

 

Edmunds checks every. single. box. And when it comes to his age to experience (5 year vet at age 24) - it's completely unheard of.

 

Regardless of how posters feel about him around here, he's going to get paid. Wouldn't at all be shocked to see him being handed the highest contract for an Inside Linebacker in NFL history.

Thats the reality of it. Even if Bills wanted to keep him. he will get paid handsomely because of all you listed. and Bills just really cant afford to pay any MLB that well.

[Thurman#1]

4 minutes ago, BillsFan130 said:

Honest question though.

 

Can the bills defence be any worse in their last 3 playoff losses? 
 

What is the point In paying him 18 mil a year so our defence is better in the regular season?

 

 

 

 

Honest answer.  

 

Narrowing down what you're looking at to three games only (one of which when many to most of teh most crucial players were out for injury or playing well below standard because of injury) and throwing out the rest shows an urge to reach a pre-selected conclusion. They've been an excellent defense.

 

That may be an honest question, but it's not a difficult one to answer.. Of course they can be worse. Much much much worse.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Thurman#1

[BillsFan130]

Just now, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Honest answer.  

 

Um, seriously? That may be an honest question, but it's not a thoughtful one. Of course they can be worse. Much much much worse.

How can they be much worse? Lol.

 

Their defence was atrocious in the last 3 playoff losses.  That part is inarguable
 

[Thurman#1]

7 minutes ago, BillsFan130 said:

How can they be much worse? Lol.

 

Their defence was atrocious in the last 3 playoff losses.  That part is inarguable
 

 

 

I should have waited to finish my thought before replying. Try reading my last answer (the edited version) again.

 

How can they be worse? Yeah, hard to figure out how the #4 DVOA defense could be worse. (That was sarcasm. There is a huge amount of room for them to be a worse defense next year than they have been. They've been really good.)

 

And again, looking only at three games in three years and ignoring the rest says more about you than it does about the D.

 

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Thurman#1

[BillsFan130]

Just now, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I should have waited to finish my thought before replying. Try reading my last answer again.

 

How can they be worse? Yeah, hard to figure out how the #1 DVOA defense could be worse. (That was sarcasm.)

 

And again, looking only at three games in three years and ignoring the rest says more about you than it does about the D.

What good is it if you are the “number 1” defence but you can’t stop a nose bleed against great QBs in the playoffs??

 

I really don’t understand your thinking here. It’s not a small sample size of their playoff failures.

 

You can even add in choking a 16 point 3rd quarter lead against Houston back in 2019

 

 

[uticaclub]

8 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I should have waited to finish my thought before replying. Try reading my last answer (the edited version) again.

 

How can they be worse? Yeah, hard to figure out how the #4 DVOA defense could be worse. (That was sarcasm. There is a huge amount of room for them to be a worse defense next year than they have been. They've been really good.)

 

And again, looking only at three games in three years and ignoring the rest says more about you than it does about the D.

 

 

it was the 3 most important games. No one gives a ***** padding your stats, blowing out bottom feeders in the regular season when you torched in the playoffs. The fact that D is rated so high yet fails every year in the playoffs means changes need to made.

Edited March 9, 2023 by uticaclub

[Thurman#1]

1 minute ago, BillsFan130 said:

What good is it if you are the “number 1” defence but you can’t stop a nose bleed against great QBs in the playoffs??

 

I really don’t understand your thinking here. It’s not a small sample size of their playoff failures.

 

You can even add in choking a 16 point 3rd quarter lead against Houston back in 2019

 

 

 

 

Sorry, man, that's just wrong

 

You're not looking at their playoff record. You're looking only at the three playoff games that best make your point. You're looking at a dataset of 40+ games and looking only at three and throwing out the rest, and thinking that makes a point. That's flawed thinking. 

 

In fact, overall they've been a good playoff defense overall. Yes, three bad games. But again, looking only at those games says more about you and what you want to believe than it does about the defense.

 

 

 

 

More, the offense was much much worse than the defense was against the Bengals, and yet nobody blames them despite the fact that they were healthy and the defense was a shell of itself from the injuries.

 

If Von Miller and Da'Quan Jones had been healthy, if Hyde had played, and if Poyer weren't hobbling and if White was as good as he's likely to be next year, the defense would have been much much better.

 

And we'd still have lost because of how awful the offense played.

 

 

[hondo in seattle]

6 hours ago, First Round Bust said:

did the link, and went beyond to sheftys twitter page and no such info exists there today and recent past, so I dunno if it was a quote from a show or pod cast but just more rumor as of the moment...

 

Given how often Schefter is wrong, does it really matter if he said it or not?

[BillsFan130]

11 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Sorry, man, that's just wrong

 

You're not looking at their playoff record. You're looking only at the three playoff games that best make your point. You're looking at a dataset of 40+ games and looking only at three and throwing out the rest, and thinking that makes a point. That's flawed thinking. 

 

In fact, overall they've been a good playoff defense overall. Yes, three bad games. But again, looking only at those games says more about you and what you want to believe than it does about the defense.

 

 

 

 

Ok I’ll take a step back and try to understand your line of thinking as I just don’t see where you’re coming from.

 

So you’re good with having great regular seasons , only to flame out against great QBs in the playoffs? Because that is the fact of the matter

 

We are talking almost 1500 yards in their last 3 losses combined and an average of over 35 points per game. (One game against burrow and 2 against Mahomes)

So yes I am looking at the last 3 losses, because if the bills go to the SB, they have to beat the elite QBs and they have showed they can’t even be remotely competitive on the defensive side against them

“Once is a mistake. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a pattern”

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by BillsFan130

[DCbillsfan]

27 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Sorry, man, that's just wrong

 

You're not looking at their playoff record. You're looking only at the three playoff games that best make your point. You're looking at a dataset of 40+ games and looking only at three and throwing out the rest, and thinking that makes a point. That's flawed thinking. 

 

In fact, overall they've been a good playoff defense overall. Yes, three bad games. But again, looking only at those games says more about you and what you want to believe than it does about the defense.

 

 

 

 

More, the offense was much much worse than the defense was against the Bengals, and yet nobody blames them despite the fact that they were healthy and the defense was a shell of itself from the injuries.

 

If Von Miller and Da'Quan Jones had been healthy, if Hyde had played, and if Poyer weren't hobbling and if White was as good as he's likely to be next year, the defense would have been much much better.

 

And we'd still have lost because of how awful the offense played.

 

 

Edmunds is a good player but he's not a game changer.  He's going to get paid by some dumb team a ridiculous amount of money.  Good for Edmunds.  As far as how valuable Edmunds is to the Bills, it's difficult to evaluate.  The Bills really have no quality depth at LB so if Milano was out or Edmunds it really showed.  The Vikings game did show Edmunds in a good way but Cam Lewis was terrible in that game too.  Plus a couple of bad turnovers by Allen.  Anyway, if Edmunds leaves it will hurt short term but it could turn into an overall positive IF Beane signs some quality players on offense and has a strong draft.

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, uticaclub said:

it was the 3 most important games. No one gives a ***** padding your stats, blowing out bottom feeders in the regular season when you torched in the playoffs. The fact that D is rated so high yet fails every year in the playoffs means changes need to made.

 

 

I'm not padding the stats. I'm just looking at everything that happened.

 

It's you who's actively ignoring the stuff you don't agree with. 

 

Classic confirmation bias. Flawed thinking.

30 minutes ago, DCbillsfan said:

Edmunds is a good player but he's not a game changer.  He's going to get paid by some dumb team a ridiculous amount of money.  Good for Edmunds.  As far as how valuable Edmunds is to the Bills, it's difficult to evaluate.  The Bills really have no quality depth at LB so if Milano was out or Edmunds it really showed.  The Vikings game did show Edmunds in a good way but Cam Lewis was terrible in that game too.  Plus a couple of bad turnovers by Allen.  Anyway, if Edmunds leaves it will hurt short term but it could turn into an overall positive IF Beane signs some quality players on offense and has a strong draft.

 

 

He absolutely is a game changer.

 

Again, with Edmunds in this year, we were #4 against the pass. With Edmunds out, #27.

 

Wanna see a game change? Look at our defensive performance against the Vikings. With Edmunds in in the first half, the defense was strong. With Edmunds out, the game totally turned and we were shredded.

 

That's what happens when you take a game changer out. Teh game changed. He's a terrific player.

 

Cam Lewis was actually OK in that game, with the exception of that one stupid play. And yeah, Allen had some bad turnovers in that game but that was the offense. The defense played great with Edmunds. And awful without him.

[DCbillsfan]

12 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I'm not padding the stats. I'm just looking at everything that happened.

 

It's you who's actively ignoring the stuff you don't agree with. 

 

Classic confirmation bias. Flawed thinking.

 

 

He absolutely is a game changer.

 

Again, with Edmunds in this year, we were #4 against the pass. With Edmunds out, #27.

 

Wanna see a game change? Look at our defensive performance against the Vikings. With Edmunds in in the first half, the defense was strong. With Edmunds out, the game totally turned and we were shredded.

 

That's what happens when you take a game changer out. Teh game changed. He's a terrific player.

 

Cam Lewis was actually OK in that game, with the exception of that one stupid play. And yeah, Allen had some bad turnovers in that game but that was the offense. The defense played great with Edmunds. And awful without him.

I guess we'll disagree on game changer.  If he was a game changer, Beane would have extended him already is how I see it.  The Bills signing Von Miller last year sealed Edmunds fate imo.

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, BillsFan130 said:

Ok I’ll take a step back and try to understand your line of thinking as I just don’t see where you’re coming from.

 

So you’re good with having great regular seasons , only to flame out against great QBs in the playoffs? Because that is the fact of the matter

 

We are talking almost 1500 yards in their last 3 losses combined and an average of over 35 points per game. (One game against burrow and 2 against Mahomes)

So yes I am looking at the last 3 losses, because if the bills go to the SB, they have to beat the elite QBs and they have showed they can’t even be remotely competitive on the defensive side against them

“Once is a mistake. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a pattern”

 

 

 

"Once is a mistake. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is a pattern," you say? Oh, my God, you absolutely cracked me up there.

 

Here's how that should look in the real world. "Once is the beginning of a pattern. Twice is the continuation of a pattern. Three times is yet more data to add to the data. Four times is more data, we're getting a bit of a picture, five times ... aaaaand 57 times is all the data. Now we have a pattern." 

 

Here's what you don't do next if you are looking for clear logical thinking, "OK, now which games can we throw out to make the data look the way it feels to me?"

 

Here's how your way of looking at the data actually is. "Once is ... oh, wait, I'm not interested in that game. Twice is ... oh, wait, they played well, I'll ignore that. Three times is ... no, this isn't supporting my prejudices, I'll ignore it. Let's see, four, no, five, no, six, no, ignore all that ... lessee, twelve, no, boy this is work, looking at all this data and realizing I have to ignore it to make my argument .... um ... OK, nope, nope, nope, nope. OK, um, game 18, nope, they were terrific, throw that out, game 19 ... AH HA!!!! At last a game that supports my view. OK, let's put that one into the set that we look at and keep moving on . [two hours later] AH HA!!!! I found another game that supports my pre-existing biases. Game 38 fits my ideas perfectly  [two more hours later] AH HA!!! I found a third game out of the 57 that I looked at. Actually, this game, game #57, isn't really at all similar to the other two, games #19 and #38. I mean, the defense held Cincy to their average score despite massive injury problems. The reason we lost that game was really the offense. But, hell, I'll call it a pattern!! Yeah!! I found a pattern!"

 

Or to greatly shorten your real argument, "Game #19 fits my ideas, Game #38 fits my ideas. And game #57 kinda sorta fits my ideas. SEE? It's no coincidence that out of 57 games I found three that fit my biases!!! It's a PATTERN!!"

 

Yeah, it's a pattern. A pattern that you are seeing only what you want to see.

 

Dude, you can pretend that "being OK" with something has some importance. But it doesn't. Means nothing. It's just an excuse to throw out the data that you're "not OK with." It's real simple. If you want to be correctly informed, look at all the data. All of it. Every single game. Then you are looking at things correctly and can make an informed decision.

 

You are a walking talking example of confirmation bias here. You are throwing out 95% of the data, cherry-picking the 5% that supports your feelings and perceptions and looking only at that 5%. Pretending that you can prove something by looking only at 5% of the data. You can't.

 

Or rather, you can, but the only thing you prove is your own passionate motivation, your desperation to make your argument even if it means making ridiculous arguments. 

 

You aren't.

 

Equally true on my side. I can't throw out any games either. But I'm not. I'm looking at every game. It's true that they're a terrific defense, but equally true that they've had some problems in three games and three key games. Would they have had those problems if they didn't have to play Jaquan Johnson, Cam Lewis and Dane Jackson so much, if Jordan Peterson, replacing Da'Quan, hadn't been playing with one arm, and if the five other injury cases hadn't been injured? Well, actually, we'll never know. Can't assume anything either way, but it's worth keeping in mind as a legitimate question. Would they have continued playing as hot as they were when Von was healthy? Could be. Equally, maybe not.

 

Worth considering, though. We clearly don't need major changes, but can we do something else to make us even better? I know Beane will continue working his ass off to find something. I hope he does.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 9, 2023 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

34 minutes ago, DCbillsfan said:

I guess we'll disagree on game changer.  If he was a game changer, Beane would have extended him already is how I see it.  The Bills signing Von Miller last year sealed Edmunds fate imo.

 

 

He is a game changer. He changes games, like that Minny game. Just not the way that some people want to see them changed.  Beane is subject to the salary cap. He has to give up guys he'd rather keep every year, going right back to Robert Woods.

 

You could very well be right about signing Von. We can totally agree there. Beane went outside his comfort zone there, consciously, knowing something else would have to give.

 

But again, we don't know Edmunds is gone yet. Might be. But we'll have to see.