Isaiah Simmons might be an answer for the Bills at MLB

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

They are certainly pick collecting and it is a new GM and a new HC neither of whom had any involvement in selecting Simmons. Maybe they like him, in which case it makes no sense. But maybe they don't? Remember Brandon Beane and Sean McDermott traded Reggie Ragland for a 5th without seeing him play a single down of football and then happily trotted Ramon Humber out there as a starter - and made the playoffs btw.

don't ***** remind me.

4 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, um, no.

 

Tremaine is now the fourth-highest paid off-ball LB in the league, behind only Roquan, Shaquille Leonard and Fred Warner.

 

Whether you guys refuse to admit it or just genuinely missed it, Tremaine was a very good LB here and then became an excellent one in his last year. The reason he's not here is because we couldn't afford him.

Nah.  The reason he's not here is because we didn't think he was worth his price.  Which is quite a bit different.

[NeverOutNick]

8 hours ago, gjv said:

 Isaiah Simmons has played the majority of his snaps at OLB and CB, but has played 508 snaps at MLB for the Cards. I would assume that's a sufficient sample size of plays at MLB for a reasonable evaluation. The Cardinals have declined his 5th-year option. Simmons' salary for next season is an affordable 1.4 mil with a cap hit of 6.5 mil. Should his 508 snaps at MLB show well, perhaps a trade for Simmons would be the Bill's answer at MLB for next season.?

I absolutely loved Simmons coming out of Clemson and think he could do well filling the role for us…I’d hope McDermott could get the most out of him because he really is pretty special athletically. Totally on board with getting him and said a couple months ago we should trade a package deal for him and Hopkins for Oliver and a draft pick 

[KOKBILLS]

9 hours ago, gjv said:

 Isaiah Simmons has played the majority of his snaps at OLB and CB, but has played 508 snaps at MLB for the Cards. I would assume that's a sufficient sample size of plays at MLB for a reasonable evaluation. The Cardinals have declined his 5th-year option. Simmons' salary for next season is an affordable 1.4 mil with a cap hit of 6.5 mil. Should his 508 snaps at MLB show well, perhaps a trade for Simmons would be the Bill's answer at MLB for next season.?

 

I think they're pretty much done in the back 7... I think they also believe they can be better. And not purely because they stay healthier. 

[Alphadawg7]

Beane has specifically stated their confidence in the guys on the roster replacing Edmunds this year.  I mean I do get the speculation here based on the low cap hits and unsettled position at MLB, but I just think Beane more often than not says what he means.
 

So I would be a little surprised if Beane made any trades at this point for a LB.  I mean, you can never say for sure, but Beane is pretty open and straight up with things like this most the time.  
 

Next years draft is expected to be a much better draft, and with our cap space being tight and the extra draft capital heading into to it, I think Beane is going to covet the extra ammo to potentially move around that draft than make trades for players. 
 

 

[Thurman#1]

7 hours ago, FireChans said:

don't ***** remind me.

Nah.  The reason he's not here is because we didn't think he was worth his price.  Which is quite a bit different.

 

 

Nonsense, as usual.

 

We get it, it's very clear that you didn't think he was worth the price. Thing is, your assumption that because you think something that Beane also thinks it is just plain dumb.

 

First, Beane isn't dumb. And you're accusing him of that here. He's worth his price. That's why he got it. That's why the Bills fully believed he would get more than they could pay in their current salary cap situation.

 

Second, Beane's said it straight out. That they'd love to get him back but they always thought he'd probably get too much.

 

Here's one of many quotations about this:

 

"That’s why he knew well before the former first-round draft pick hit the open market this week that there was probably no way the Bills were going to be able to re-sign the five-year starter. Sure enough, Edmunds landed in Chicago on a massive four-year deal worth $72 million with a staggering $50 million guaranteed.

 

“ 'We stayed in touch with his representatives,' Beane said. 'We thought he was the top linebacker in free agency and all it takes is one team. I don’t know how many were bidding for him; I’m not privy to that. But it’s not a surprise that he got up there. We love him, didn’t want to lose him, but it’s a puzzle piece and unfortunately you just can’t keep them all.'”

 

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/sports/football/nfl/bills/2023/03/17/buffalo-bills-news-brandon-beane-expected-to-lose-tremaine-edmunds/70016451007/

 

"We’re always wanting to draft, develop, sign our own. Sometimes there’s big-ticket items and you can only pay so many guys. So when you’re talking about a guy that just hit an $18 million (average per year), that’s hard. That meant if you’re going to pay that, then you may say ‘We’re going to lose this other guy or we’re going to move on from him.’ You make decisions. You do the best you can. You don’t want to lose a guy like Tremaine.”

 

https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/observations-brandon-beane-says-bills-loved-didnt-want-to-lose-tremaine-edmunds/article_d5d33518-c455-11ed-b3f1-ff25b721dfde.html

 

 

That's what they think, that he was worth it but they couldn't pay it. They expected him to get a huge contract, because he's worth it. They couldn't keep all of the players they wanted because of their salary cap situation. "No way they were going to be able to ..." Not that they didn't think it was worth it. 

 

 

 

You're right, not thinking he is worth it is quite different. That is indeed exactly and precisely the mistake you made. Because it fits your narrative, you assumed Beane must think the same thing. It was a classic case of badly misreading reality. That's how confirmation bias works.

 

 

 

[ganesh]

19 hours ago, TheyCallMeAndy said:

I think if Bills didn’t feel Bernard or Williams could hold the job down, they would’ve made a move many months ago.

 

Ive heard Simmons is poor vs run and getting off blocks too. Built like a LB but very much a safety.

Also, I think they Bills have solidified their front four.  They might also sign a veteran DE.    This may make the MLB position less critical. 

 

Also, Joe Marino had a good point in his recent podcast.  Tremaine was 6' 5" and struggled to shed blockers and the MLB position needs a 5' 10" or 5' 11" height player..   Doriyan Williams fits that bill. 

[WhoTom]

10 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Yeah, um, no.

 

Tremaine is now the fourth-highest paid off-ball LB in the league, behind only Roquan, Shaquille Leonard and Fred Warner.

 

Whether you guys refuse to admit it or just genuinely missed it, Tremaine was a very good LB here and then became an excellent one in his last year. The reason he's not here is because we couldn't afford him.

 

I know - hence the "poor man's" part of the comment. I was just pointing out that people often criticized Edmunds for those same issues. I agree that he's good and his absence creates a hole, but his price tag was too high for the Bills. It looks like they're compensating for his loss by bringing in a run-stuffing DT and settling for a "more affordable" Tremaine alternative.

[whorlnut]

Who really cares?  Why is everyone so worked up about a MLB that would just get torched by Mahomes or burrow in the playoffs anyhow?  It’s a silly thing to argue about imo. We got much better by adding offensive weapons and a mauling guard. We also added beef with Ford and you can get away with smaller LBers if you have size up front. That’s how you win in todays nfl. This isn’t the old nfl. 

Edited May 7, 2023 by whorlnut

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Nonsense, as usual.

 

We get it, it's very clear that you didn't think he was worth the price. Thing is, your assumption that because you think something that Beane also thinks it is just plain dumb.

 

First, Beane isn't dumb. And you're accusing him of that here. He's worth his price. That's why he got it. That's why the Bills fully believed he would get more than they could pay in their current salary cap situation.

 

Second, Beane's said it straight out. That they'd love to get him back but they always thought he'd probably get too much.

 

Here's one of many quotations about this:

 

"That’s why he knew well before the former first-round draft pick hit the open market this week that there was probably no way the Bills were going to be able to re-sign the five-year starter. Sure enough, Edmunds landed in Chicago on a massive four-year deal worth $72 million with a staggering $50 million guaranteed.

 

“ 'We stayed in touch with his representatives,' Beane said. 'We thought he was the top linebacker in free agency and all it takes is one team. I don’t know how many were bidding for him; I’m not privy to that. But it’s not a surprise that he got up there. We love him, didn’t want to lose him, but it’s a puzzle piece and unfortunately you just can’t keep them all.'”

 

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/sports/football/nfl/bills/2023/03/17/buffalo-bills-news-brandon-beane-expected-to-lose-tremaine-edmunds/70016451007/

 

"We’re always wanting to draft, develop, sign our own. Sometimes there’s big-ticket items and you can only pay so many guys. So when you’re talking about a guy that just hit an $18 million (average per year), that’s hard. That meant if you’re going to pay that, then you may say ‘We’re going to lose this other guy or we’re going to move on from him.’ You make decisions. You do the best you can. You don’t want to lose a guy like Tremaine.”

 

https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/observations-brandon-beane-says-bills-loved-didnt-want-to-lose-tremaine-edmunds/article_d5d33518-c455-11ed-b3f1-ff25b721dfde.html

 

 

That's what they think, that he was worth it but they couldn't pay it. They expected him to get a huge contract, because he's worth it. They couldn't keep all of the players they wanted because of their salary cap situation. "No way they were going to be able to ..." Not that they didn't think it was worth it. 

 

 

 

You're right, not thinking he is worth it is quite different. That is indeed exactly and precisely the mistake you made. Because it fits your narrative, you assumed Beane must think the same thing. It was a classic case of badly misreading reality. That's how confirmation bias works.

 

 

I think the money he got was right at the upper boundary. Personally I did some 5 year out projections and I thought $18m AAV was just about doable. But it was right at the top of my range. Maybe the Bills thought they couldn't do that impossible to have all the info (for example they might already have decided on Rousseau being extended). Maybe they though they could only for special and Tremaine isn't special. It is really hard to know. Had it been $20m AAV it would have been a clear affordability issue. At the number it was it it is right on the boundary between pure affordability and affordability vs value.

[Green Lightning]

19 hours ago, BuffaloBillyG said:

Ok. So, how did he look in those 508 snaps? 

Apparently like a guy you don't pick up a 5th year option on.

[BarleyNY]

18 hours ago, NewEra said:

I think it deserves some analysis too. Unfortunately, the analysis ends @ 6.5M cap hit.  If Az would assume most of that hit (if that’s even possible), I’d be good with trading a 6th for a 1 year rental.  And a 6th might even be a bit rich.  

A team trading for Simmons would only assume a $3.4M cap hit. Spotrac

 

I remember him as a prospect and thought I heard that he was doing well for AZ. I don’t know why they’d be looking to move on from him if that’s the case though. I haven’t watched him play so I don’t have any opinion on whether I’d want the Bills to acquire him. 

Edited May 7, 2023 by BarleyNY

[NewEra]

27 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

A team trading for Simmons would only assume a $3.4M cap hit. Spotrac

 

I remember him as a prospect and thought I heard that he was doing well for AZ. I don’t know why they’d be looking to move on from him if that’s the case though. I haven’t watched him play so I don’t have any opinion on whether I’d want the Bills to acquire him. 

Thanks-   @Doc corrected me.  Too lazy to fix my post 🤣 

Since I made the post, I read the cardinals forums and talked to a buddy who’s a cardinal fan. Consensus seemed to be that he had his best season last year but was more of a big nickel than mlb- he covered the slot a lot.  Most felt that was the only role he could really excel in   Considering his 5th year option would make him the highest paid slot corner in the league- everyone agrees with the team not picking up the 5th year- 

 

seems like he could be a fit for us as a :rd LB- a la Shaq Thompson, but not sure he would be a fit at the Mike in a 2 LB set

 

[Saxum]

21 hours ago, Big Turk said:

 

Dodson will likely be the MLB.

 

Klein will be on field before Dodson.  He always was before and was not unsigned before by Bills due to performance but to be able to sign other players.

[FireChans]

4 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Nonsense, as usual.

 

We get it, it's very clear that you didn't think he was worth the price. Thing is, your assumption that because you think something that Beane also thinks it is just plain dumb.

 

First, Beane isn't dumb. And you're accusing him of that here. He's worth his price. That's why he got it. That's why the Bills fully believed he would get more than they could pay in their current salary cap situation.

 

Second, Beane's said it straight out. That they'd love to get him back but they always thought he'd probably get too much.

 

Here's one of many quotations about this:

 

"That’s why he knew well before the former first-round draft pick hit the open market this week that there was probably no way the Bills were going to be able to re-sign the five-year starter. Sure enough, Edmunds landed in Chicago on a massive four-year deal worth $72 million with a staggering $50 million guaranteed.

 

“ 'We stayed in touch with his representatives,' Beane said. 'We thought he was the top linebacker in free agency and all it takes is one team. I don’t know how many were bidding for him; I’m not privy to that. But it’s not a surprise that he got up there. We love him, didn’t want to lose him, but it’s a puzzle piece and unfortunately you just can’t keep them all.'”

 

https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/sports/football/nfl/bills/2023/03/17/buffalo-bills-news-brandon-beane-expected-to-lose-tremaine-edmunds/70016451007/

 

"We’re always wanting to draft, develop, sign our own. Sometimes there’s big-ticket items and you can only pay so many guys. So when you’re talking about a guy that just hit an $18 million (average per year), that’s hard. That meant if you’re going to pay that, then you may say ‘We’re going to lose this other guy or we’re going to move on from him.’ You make decisions. You do the best you can. You don’t want to lose a guy like Tremaine.”

 

https://buffalonews.com/sports/bills/observations-brandon-beane-says-bills-loved-didnt-want-to-lose-tremaine-edmunds/article_d5d33518-c455-11ed-b3f1-ff25b721dfde.html

 

 

That's what they think, that he was worth it but they couldn't pay it. They expected him to get a huge contract, because he's worth it. They couldn't keep all of the players they wanted because of their salary cap situation. "No way they were going to be able to ..." Not that they didn't think it was worth it. 

 

 

 

You're right, not thinking he is worth it is quite different. That is indeed exactly and precisely the mistake you made. Because it fits your narrative, you assumed Beane must think the same thing. It was a classic case of badly misreading reality. That's how confirmation bias works.

 

 

 

This is is going to hurt for you to find out. But GM’s don’t trash players that leave in FA lol.

 

They could’ve afforded him. Obviously they didn’t want to do that with their salary cap situation. So they let him go,  because he wasn’t worth it to them lol

[Big Turk]

1 hour ago, Limeaid said:

 

Klein will be on field before Dodson.  He always was before and was not unsigned before by Bills due to performance but to be able to sign other players.

 

Not necessarily...he limits what they can do in the passing game more than Dodson

[BADOLBILZ]

15 hours ago, FireChans said:

Nah.  The reason he's not here is because we didn't think he was worth his price.  Which is quite a bit different.

 

Correct.

 

The type of player that the Bills COULD afford to sign to a big contract was someone with 5-6 years of career left in front of him like Tremaine Edmunds.

 

But retaining him meant an investment in both cap space AND a style of defense that has been dissected with alarming ease in the playoffs 3 straight seasons.

 

We talk about how the team has reacted to playoff losses with personnel changes directly related to what went wrong in those games..........well I think that becoming a defense that is less predictable and reacts more to specific opponents was a NEED.   The latter has helped Cinci over-perform two straight seasons in the playoffs. 

 

Retaining Edmunds didn't totally preclude them from being more multiple and he was excellent against inferior opponents.............but it would be hard to take him off the field making that much money and at this point he was an absolute liability in "money" games against elite passers because of his lack of instincts.

[whorlnut]

Anyone seen Einstein’s Dog?

[BADOLBILZ]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I think the money he got was right at the upper boundary. Personally I did some 5 year out projections and I thought $18m AAV was just about doable. But it was right at the top of my range. Maybe the Bills thought they couldn't do that impossible to have all the info (for example they might already have decided on Rousseau being extended). Maybe they though they could only for special and Tremaine isn't special. It is really hard to know. Had it been $20m AAV it would have been a clear affordability issue. At the number it was it it is right on the boundary between pure affordability and affordability vs value.

 

 

@Thurman#1 is one of the most consistently wrong posters I've ever seen on TSW.........he just defends what he thinks is the company line at the moment and opens every other response with a declaration of "nonsense" as if that adds gravity to his woeful takes. 

 

It was simply a juice/squeeze decision.   They clearly could have backloaded his deal with no problem........and they would have if he had Logan Wilson level instincts and adaptability.   Hell they would have picked up his option if he did.   Tremaine is a mediocre processor in a Brian Urlacher-like body and the modest improvements he's made in that regard over time didn't justify the investment.

[Alphadawg7]

22 hours ago, whorlnut said:

I really don’t understand why some people are calling Beane a liar just because they don’t share the same opinion.  Beane has said over and over that they might have the replacement in house. He also talked glowingly about brown and also about adding a “pass catcher” that might not be a WR. It’s time to face the music people…Beane is happy with who he has at MLB. Get over it. 

 

You and me both...spot on

Edited May 7, 2023 by Alphadawg7

[whorlnut]

7 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

You and me both...spot on

I just really couldn’t care less about MLB. It’s not what wins big games in this league.  Too many older fans still think it’s the “old days”.