I’d like to advocate some opinions on contracts, especially in regards to Edmunds’.

[BeastMaster]

Get over this dude already

 

He was an ok player with freakish skills, but a low football IQ.

 

His value is overstated, and I believe we are better suited with a player that has real instincts at MLB instead of an athletic specimen.

 

 

[NewEra]

Good ol tipster thread. 

[skibum]

Once again, here we have the assumption that a GM can (a) impose his will on a player, (b) make any trade happen at the drop of a hat (and always win the trade), and (c) somehow skirt the invisible hands of the open market and get the best value and outcome in every scenario. The GM simply can't control everything. 

[Thrivefourfive]

The ballsiest move and the only right move based on how things played out the last two years was to trade him after year three. Let someone else have the headache. I don’t care the age, it’s football, and honestly it’s not that hard. He has the physical tools, but unless he can simplify his thoughts and NOT think, his greatest asset is taking up space and making the QB avoid throwing in his area. I don’t know.. that’s nice, but the Bills 100% whiffed here all things considered. 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Thrivefourfive

[BillsVet]

14 minutes ago, NewEra said:

Good ol tipster thread. 

 

Yeah...start a thread with your opinion, let others debate, and then never return to engage with those who replied.

 

If you believe something enough to start a thread then have the common decency to defend your argument.  If not, I'll assume you didn't think it through much.  

 

 

[Rigotz]

The piece you’re missing here is if the player is actually good and believes in himself, he’s not going to sign a cheap long term deal when he doesn’t have to.

That plan can also backfire horrifically. What deal would you have given Edmunds 2 years ago when he had proven nothing? It’s an unnecessary risk for both the player and the GM.

 

You’re also missing some signings this year apparently as well. McGovern is very much an upside pick on a long term deal. Same with Harty. Beane is going above market in year 1 so he can potentially get a steal in the later years. That’s exactly what he did with Poyer and Hyde too.

 

I appreciate the thought you put into this, but it was a big miss.

[DrDawkinstein]

We missed on extending/re-signing him because up until his 5th/last year, he simply was not WORTHY of being extended or re-signed. Even if we could've gotten a deal a couple years ago and locked him in at $15M/year, his play on the field said even that wouldve been overpaying.

 

Unfortunately, this is as much on the player as it is on Beane, if not more so.

[PatsFanNH]

11 hours ago, Chaos said:

Alternatively, do not draft 19 year olds. 

What did he do graduate HS at 16? I mean it’s still a rule you have to be 3 years after HS to be drafted right? 

[BillsFan130]

11 hours ago, PrimeTime101 said:

it was said specifically that there were no contract extension talks other than picking up his 5th year. 

That’s interesting but I believe that. Where did you hear that out of curiosity?

[ColoradoBills]

24 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

We missed on extending/re-signing him because up until his 5th/last year, he simply was not WORTHY of being extended or re-signed. Even if we could've gotten a deal a couple years ago and locked him in at $15M/year, his play on the field said even that wouldve been overpaying.

 

Unfortunately, this is as much on the player as it is on Beane, if not more so.

 

Agree.

 

Way too many critiques based on hindsight around here.  Trading Edmunds a year or even 2 ago while the Bills were on the threshold of

a SB run would have been irresponsible.

 

I can make an argument that the Bills D scheme was due to Edmund's traits.  I can see McDermott, who just happens to have total control now,

evolving the scheme on D to a post Edmunds team.  With Poyer back, the only big change is Edmunds.  Fans here can debate McDermott's HC

qualities but he is an extremely competent DC.  I have a lot of hope he can adapt with a new D scheme.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

37 minutes ago, PatsFanNH said:

What did he do graduate HS at 16? I mean it’s still a rule you have to be 3 years after HS to be drafted right? 

 

He was 19 when drafted but 20 by the fall when he played here.  So i think he graduated at 17, played at VT from 17-19.  

[oldmanfan]

Edmunds had two things going against him with respect to contract, irrespective of his skills on the field:

 

1.  He was drafted the same year as Allen, and when Allen showed up big and got the big contract it was going to limit what the Bills could do with a guy in the same year.  hard to give another massive contract out in th e same time period, and this was exacerbated by paying Miller.

 

2.  Milano turned out to be an All Pro, and it's hard to sink a ton of money into two players in the same position group.

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by oldmanfan

[Tipster19]

45 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

We missed on extending/re-signing him because up until his 5th/last year, he simply was not WORTHY of being extended or re-signed. Even if we could've gotten a deal a couple years ago and locked him in at $15M/year, his play on the field said even that wouldve been overpaying.

 

Unfortunately, this is as much on the player as it is on Beane, if not more so.

Then he should have been traded. I just don’t understand why anyone would let a 1st rder run the full 5 years and not get anything out of it. Aren’t the GMs paid to know what to do?

1 hour ago, BillsVet said:

 

Yeah...start a thread with your opinion, let others debate, and then never return to engage with those who replied.

 

If you believe something enough to start a thread then have the common decency to defend your argument.  If not, I'll assume you didn't think it through much.  

 

 

Argument?? That’s the problem with this place, too many people want to argue.

 

Well, here I am. What do you want to “engage” about? Read the title, I clearly asked for opinions.

[PrimeTime101]

1 hour ago, BillsFan130 said:

That’s interesting but I believe that. Where did you hear that out of curiosity?

when they extended him. They specifically said "we will give him his 5th year and talks about contract extensions that year"

[DrDawkinstein]

15 minutes ago, Tipster19 said:

Then he should have been traded. I just don’t understand why anyone would let a 1st rder run the full 5 years and not get anything out of it. Aren’t the GMs paid to know what to do?

 

Traded to who, for what? That's a nice wish, but in reality you need a team willing to make that trade, and willing to offer something worthwhile.

 

No GM is perfect 100% of the time. The best ones hit at a rate slightly above 50% (and we have one of the better ones). Life has too many variables at play from so many different angles.

 

It's easy to sit in hindsight and bag on past decisions, but at the time, letting him play out was the best choice.

[BringBackFergy]

Edmunds was a hard hitting player for the Bills and hit with such force he single handedly caused more concussions to players than any other LB…unfortunately, the injuries he caused were to his fellow teammates. #thirdmaninontackles

[BillsVet]

21 minutes ago, Tipster19 said:

Then he should have been traded. I just don’t understand why anyone would let a 1st rder run the full 5 years and not get anything out of it. Aren’t the GMs paid to know what to do?

Argument?? That’s the problem with this place, too many people want to argue.

 

Well, here I am. What do you want to “engage” about? Read the title, I clearly asked for opinions.

 

I have observed a trend with threads you start in that you never re-enter to discuss.  It's just throw a subject out, let others debate, and then go away.  

 

The discussion and debate around Edmunds has continued ad nauseam to the point it's asinine  The team made a business decision on a player that, yes they selected high, but who provided less than ideal value at a position of lesser importance.  He was a matchup disadvantage for that defense and those who used bulk stats always missed that.   He was not the player they envisioned to him to be.  

 

Edmunds the player is the first example that fans cannot have everything (player-wise) you want and that includes players drafted.  Eventually the cap must be managed and they're doing it.  Right or wrong, that's the issue.  

 

[PrimeTime101]

48 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Agree.

 

Way too many critiques based on hindsight around here.  Trading Edmunds a year or even 2 ago while the Bills were on the threshold of

a SB run would have been irresponsible.

 

I can make an argument that the Bills D scheme was due to Edmund's traits.  I can see McDermott, who just happens to have total control now,

evolving the scheme on D to a post Edmunds team.  With Poyer back, the only big change is Edmunds.  Fans here can debate McDermott's HC

qualities but he is an extremely competent DC.  I have a lot of hope he can adapt with a new D scheme.

Its not hindsight when SOME of us wanted an extension bigger then the 1 year rookie extension. Some of us slammed for wanting a bigger contract last year and now you call it hindsight? how very convenient 

[Tipster19]

6 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

 

I have observed a trend with threads you start in that you never re-enter to discuss.  It's just throw a subject out, let others debate, and then go away.  

 

The discussion and debate around Edmunds has continued ad nauseam to the point it's asinine  The team made a business decision on a player that, yes they selected high, but who provided less than ideal value at a position of lesser importance.  He was a matchup disadvantage for that defense and those who used bulk stats always missed that.   He was not the player they envisioned to him to be.  

 

Edmunds the player is the first example that fans cannot have everything (player-wise) you want and that includes players drafted.  Eventually the cap must be managed and they're doing it.  Right or wrong, that's the issue.  

 

Are you a moderator?? I find your statement inaccurate. Btw, whenever I post a thread THAT is my opinion, it’s not always needed to elaborate on it.

 

The second point of your response really doesn’t make sense. The point of this thread is contracts and if they are good ones but according to you if the Bills are drafting players in the mid 1st rd that “provided less than ideal value at a position of lesser importance” than we got bigger issues than I have realized! Lol!

 

The 3rd point that you’re trying to make is oh well if we whiff on a 1st rd pick and do nothing to minimize that mistake then that’s ok, that’s the price you pay. Do I have that right?? 
 

Anyways how did I do?? Did I engage and argue enough for you?

[Don Otreply]

13 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

Perhaps the amount of money that they were talking about at extension time wasn’t agreeable once again I don’t know I’m just spit balling here. It’s really not like Brandon to not resign his own players.

I think this is what the case was, otherwise they very likely re-sign him, which is the SOP with Beane, the extension they “may have” offered likely made it clear to Edmonds that Buffalo did not see his value where Tremaine felt it should be…, and now he is gone, its moving on time now, jmo.