Is the MLB Competition Over Before It Started?

[Magox]

19 hours ago, Dopey said:

Seems the consensus here is that the defense folds in big games. Not just Edmunds. By that logic, you could say the same for Milano. I mean he did get Mossed on the game winning td by KC in our last playoff loss to them. Well, unless you wear those anti-Edmunds glasses too. They kinda skew the vision. 

 

That would imply that the main problem was with the defensive game planning.  Which I absolutely believe has been weak against top tier teams in the playoffs.

 

They need to flip the script somehow and not be so predictable.

14 hours ago, machine gun kelly said:

So Benford and Rapp are tiny?  Rapp is quite a bit larger than Hyde and Poyer, you know those 1st and 2nd team all pro guys that before last year were the best safety tandem in the league.  Tre a previous 1st time all or sucks.  Taron who is considered a top 2-3 NCB in the league has somehow forgot how to cover.

 

Rapp is for our heave TE and running teams instead of Taron.  Mika I’d size has never been a problem and we have length and powered up from the first 4.  Beane admitted he was going for more speed at MLB.  
 

When Von is back, we have the potential to have Groot inside at 6’7, and Floyd who also has length.

 

Rapp will be used quite a bit in passing down situations, specially 3rd down.

[PBF81]

31 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

Like it or not, those circumstances are a huge part of the decision-making process. Huge.

 

Yeah, every team has to deal with the cap and the draft and so on. But that doesn't make it any less of a factor. It's a huge 

 

They may well have chosen it ... but not as an absolute the way you're painting it here. When they make these choices they're doing so knowing that if you get what you want at one position that you are limiting your funds for use at other positions, that  you can only draft what's available when your pick comes up, and so on. They have made it very clear, again and again and again, that they wanted to keep Edmunds. That was their best option in terms specifically of maximizing their MLB. But they couldn't do it and have their cap be what they want it to be.

 

Of course there were other options. But not unlimited other options. There isn't a team in the league that doesn't have major concerns at one position or more that they wouldn't have liked to handle differently in an ideal world. 

 

Bottom line, even if it works out that MLB is manned this year at a replacement level, or even slightly below that, they look like they have one of the top two or three rosters in the league.

 

Being a fan, I'll likely be fretting at MLB play this year. Wondering if they'll try to use Dorian Williams there next year. And enjoying a season watching a terrific team perform.

 

Thanks for the very nice reply!!!  

 

As to the bolded, thanks, but a lot of people here claim the opposite, which renders it difficult to have an honest discussion with some about that state of affairs.  

 

People often bark, "what would you have done."   To me, while a lot of GMs and Coaches have their strengths, but among them are not always the replacement-planning aspect of it.  

 

As to what I would have done, I've been on record since last season's draft that I'd have either taken Nakobe Dean instead of Cook in round 2, or looked to trade up to get him in round 3 while he was still available.  He's going to be very good at MLB and played the role tenaciously at UGA.  He reminds me a little bit of London Fletcher.   NFL.com quoted an NFL executive as having him be a Jessie Tuggle clone, which is highly complimentary.  

 

It's water under the bridge now.  Having said all that, I'm not sure that anyone's as bullish on our offense as I am.  I'm envisioning record-setting performance this season, not merely for the franchise, but some league records as well.  I do expect the offense to be like KC's offenses in recent history while our D is also similar to their defenses of recent history.  KC won two Super Bowls with the 7th and 16th ranked scoring defenses, and went to yet lost another with the 10th ranked one.  Their offenses OTOH in SB wins were ranked 5th and 1st, and 6th in the lost SB.  

 

Time will tell how this season plays out.  

 

I'm excited though as I know all of us are.  This preseason game should be interesting for the first quarter anyway, after that the starters will likely get yanked.  Can't wait for the real games to begin.  

 

GO BILLS!!! 

 

 

[NickelCity]

35 minutes ago, BBFL said:

107 tackles in a “diminished” role last season…?

 

Wow. 
 

By statistical guidelines, who cares how he got them, at that number he has to be worth a look. 
 

(But in seriousness. He became a starter last year. His role increased from the previous 2…)

 

Clearly my caveat of "If I recall correctly" came into play 😂

Edited August 14, 2023 by NickelCity

[Shaw66]

21 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Thanks for the very nice reply!!!  

 

As to the bolded, thanks, but a lot of people here claim the opposite, which renders it difficult to have an honest discussion with some about that state of affairs.  

 

People often bark, "what would you have done."   To me, while a lot of GMs and Coaches have their strengths, but among them are not always the replacement-planning aspect of it.  

 

As to what I would have done, I've been on record since last season's draft that I'd have either taken Nakobe Dean instead of Cook in round 2, or looked to trade up to get him in round 3 while he was still available.  He's going to be very good at MLB and played the role tenaciously at UGA.  He reminds me a little bit of London Fletcher.   NFL.com quoted an NFL executive as having him be a Jessie Tuggle clone, which is highly complimentary.  

 

It's water under the bridge now.  Having said all that, I'm not sure that anyone's as bullish on our offense as I am.  I'm envisioning record-setting performance this season, not merely for the franchise, but some league records as well.  I do expect the offense to be like KC's offenses in recent history while our D is also similar to their defenses of recent history.  KC won two Super Bowls with the 7th and 16th ranked scoring defenses, and went to yet lost another with the 10th ranked one.  Their offenses OTOH in SB wins were ranked 5th and 1st, and 6th in the lost SB.  

 

Time will tell how this season plays out.  

 

I'm excited though as I know all of us are.  This preseason game should be interesting for the first quarter anyway, after that the starters will likely get yanked.  Can't wait for the real games to begin.  

 

GO BILLS!!! 

 

 

I just read what Thurm said and your reply.   Outstanding!

 

I don't know, either, if the bolded part of what Thurm said is really accurate.  I mean, I know they said nice things about Edmunds and all, but I think when you look at the bigger picture, I think what they said meant something else.   I think if we could have a frank one-on-one conversation with Beane or McDermott or both, they would tell you that the middle linebacker they want, in a perfect world, is not Edmunds and it is not any of the guys currently on the roster.  I think the fact that Beane did not write a big check tells us that Edmunds is not their ideal linebacker, and the fact that he did not go after a middle linebacker any more aggressively than a third-round rookie tells us that the Bills have the talent on the roster to play the position at a level that McDermott can work with it.   In other words, Edmunds isn't Keuchly so the Bills wouldn't pay him, and the current guys aren't Edmunds but they're good enough.  

 

I really don't like it when people come on here and say, "this is what I would have done in the draft," which is what you said.  But you qualified it in exactly the right way - water under the bridge.  You guys both recognize that the GM has an entire roster to build, that it's a multi-year problem that changes from year to year and even month to month.   Between the salary cap and the draft, there aren't enough resources to build it all perfectly.  There is an endless stream of tradeoffs being made, and they involve educated guesses about players and the future.  

 

I've come to realize, again, that McBeane are doing exactly what they said they were going to do when they came to Buffalo.  They said they were going to build a roster that was going to get better, year after year.   I think that is exactly what has happened.  We all can argue about this position or that position, but it's looking to me like this roster is the best roster we've seen for the Bills in this century.  I mean, people are arguing about the #2 wideout.  Really?   Half the teams in the league, or more, would insert Gabe Davis into their starting lineups immediately, and the Bills have Shakir, Sheffield, and Harty ready to go, as well, and TWO starting tight ends!  I'd prefer a running back room with McCoy and Fred Jackson, but the Bills have a really solid running back room.  They have a top five defensive line and a top five defensive backfield.  So, we're left with talking about what is really only a RELATIVE lack of experience and talent at middle linebacker.  

 

I'm really looking forward to seeing this team play.

 

Thanks for your post. 

[Nephilim17]

Perhaps the bigger question than "is the MLB competition settled" is "how much will mediocre or bottom-third MLB play impact a defense that should (assuming Tre somewhat returns to form and that age doesn't hit Hyde and Poyer hard this year) have a great line and backfield?

I think that the answer is not a lot. Or I hope that's the case. I didn't see Edmunds make a big difference against KC and Cinci and so I don't think his absence will hurt as as much as some fear, even with diminished play at the position. Good MLB play is not essential to slow down high-powered offenses today. IMHO.

[ColoradoBills]

23 hours ago, Bangarang said:

McD is going to need to get crafty with how uses both Dodson and Rapp.

 

I agree.  None of us knows for sure what McDs plans are this season.

 

I'm looking at it this way.  In the modern NFL the DLs number one priority is pass rushing.  You hope they are strong against the run too.

The normal secondary (starting 2 CBs and 2 Ss) have a defined role.  The only "wildcard" in player personnel are the other 3 players.

 

I'm going to wait to see how McD uses those players specifically against each type of offense they face.  I have a feeling that's what's

up Sean's sleeve and Bobby Babich's presser only strengthens that feeling.  I realize this is a departure from McDs past but that is the

other reason I believe he wanted to take over the DC role this year.

 

Only time will tell what exactly is going on.

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, PBF81 said:

 

Thanks for the very nice reply!!!  

 

As to the bolded, thanks, but a lot of people here claim the opposite, which renders it difficult to have an honest discussion with some about that state of affairs.  

 

People often bark, "what would you have done."   To me, while a lot of GMs and Coaches have their strengths, but among them are not always the replacement-planning aspect of it.  

 

As to what I would have done, I've been on record since last season's draft that I'd have either taken Nakobe Dean instead of Cook in round 2, or looked to trade up to get him in round 3 while he was still available.  He's going to be very good at MLB and played the role tenaciously at UGA.  He reminds me a little bit of London Fletcher.   NFL.com quoted an NFL executive as having him be a Jessie Tuggle clone, which is highly complimentary.  

 

It's water under the bridge now.  Having said all that, I'm not sure that anyone's as bullish on our offense as I am.  I'm envisioning record-setting performance this season, not merely for the franchise, but some league records as well.  I do expect the offense to be like KC's offenses in recent history while our D is also similar to their defenses of recent history.  KC won two Super Bowls with the 7th and 16th ranked scoring defenses, and went to yet lost another with the 10th ranked one.  Their offenses OTOH in SB wins were ranked 5th and 1st, and 6th in the lost SB.  

 

Time will tell how this season plays out.  

 

I'm excited though as I know all of us are.  This preseason game should be interesting for the first quarter anyway, after that the starters will likely get yanked.  Can't wait for the real games to begin.  

 

GO BILLS!!! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As to the bolded, oh, puh-leeze. Good Lord! that's absolute and complete nonsense. Yes, you're right, there are some people who claim otherwise. But you can find dolts on here claiming all kinds of complete horse puckey.

 

Thing is, it's not just anyone "claiming" that they wanted to keep Tremaine Edmunds. It's Brandon Beane. In case you weren't sure, he's the GM of the Bills, the one who makes the decisions. And he didn't say so once. He said it again and again and again. They wanted to keep him. They didn't have the money, as he has told us not once but repeatedly.

 

The fact that some keyboard warriors say different is completely irrelevant. 

 

It's not even slightly difficult to have an honest discussion about this. It may indeed be difficult for some people who would like reality to be different to swallow the facts. 

 

Your claim is that some GMs aren't good at "the replacement-planning aspect of it," and your way of backing that up is that you want to claim that your way of attacking the same situation would have been to pick Dean by trading up in the third round of 2022 to get an MLB rather than do what Beane did in picking an MLB in the third round of 2022? When both MLBs have played a bunch of STs and a similar handful of defensive snaps as rookies, with Bernard having played 110 to Dean's 34? Seriously?

 

The idea's a bit dopey. That's not a planning problem. Might turn out to be the wrong pick, certainly. 

 

Or not.

 

We'll see down the road.

[Warriorspikes51]

I'm at the point where the options should be:

1.) Start Dorian Williams and let him learn on the fly
2.) Sign/Trade for a veteran LB

[Thurman#1]

31 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I just read what Thurm said and your reply.   Outstanding!

 

I don't know, either, if the bolded part of what Thurm said is really accurate.  I mean, I know they said nice things about Edmunds and all, but I think when you look at the bigger picture, I think what they said meant something else.   I think if we could have a frank one-on-one conversation with Beane or McDermott or both, they would tell you that the middle linebacker they want, in a perfect world, is not Edmunds and it is not any of the guys currently on the roster.  I think the fact that Beane did not write a big check tells us that Edmunds is not their ideal linebacker, and the fact that he did not go after a middle linebacker any more aggressively than a third-round rookie tells us that the Bills have the talent on the roster to play the position at a level that McDermott can work with it.   In other words, Edmunds isn't Keuchly so the Bills wouldn't pay him, and the current guys aren't Edmunds but they're good enough.  

 

I really don't like it when people come on here and say, "this is what I would have done in the draft," which is what you said.  But you qualified it in exactly the right way - water under the bridge.  You guys both recognize that the GM has an entire roster to build, that it's a multi-year problem that changes from year to year and even month to month.   Between the salary cap and the draft, there aren't enough resources to build it all perfectly.  There is an endless stream of tradeoffs being made, and they involve educated guesses about players and the future.  

 

I've come to realize, again, that McBeane are doing exactly what they said they were going to do when they came to Buffalo.  They said they were going to build a roster that was going to get better, year after year.   I think that is exactly what has happened.  We all can argue about this position or that position, but it's looking to me like this roster is the best roster we've seen for the Bills in this century.  I mean, people are arguing about the #2 wideout.  Really?   Half the teams in the league, or more, would insert Gabe Davis into their starting lineups immediately, and the Bills have Shakir, Sheffield, and Harty ready to go, as well, and TWO starting tight ends!  I'd prefer a running back room with McCoy and Fred Jackson, but the Bills have a really solid running back room.  They have a top five defensive line and a top five defensive backfield.  So, we're left with talking about what is really only a RELATIVE lack of experience and talent at middle linebacker.  

 

I'm really looking forward to seeing this team play.

 

Thanks for your post. 

 

 

Shaw, that bit about Beane just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

If we know one thing about Beane it's that he doesn't feel the need to lie. If he doesn't want to answer something, he does what people who don't lie do, he refuses to answer, or he replies in platitudes that don't strictly answer the question or he changes the subject. 

 

What he doesn't do is repeatedly lie.

 

And again and again he's said that he wanted to keep Edmunds. "We love him. Didn't want to lose him." But knew they wouldn't be able to afford him. And similar things at other times. He didn't say this once. He said it repeatedly and consistently. He didn't have to say that, but he did. Could've gone with, "Tremaine is a warrior. I want him next to me in a foxhole. But the NFL is a business." Instead he said at every opportunity that he wanted him back but that it would probably be impossible to afford.

 

The idea that not paying him means he didn't want him simply doesn't make sense. It means what he said it means, that they can't pay him that much money right now without doing more damage to the team. You say that Tremaine isn't "ideal"? Well fair enough, but how many guys on this team are ideal? Two, maybe, who are damn close? He would have easily been the best option for this year - at the absolute least - if finances weren't involved. But they are.

 

He makes financial disqualifications on guys he'd rather keep/bring in all of the time. So does every GM.

 

Agreed that Beane is doing a terrific job. And I think it's really a reasonable argument that this is his strongest roster in his term, and he's put together some excellent rosters.

 

Agreed about most of the rest of your post. This is a really good-looking team, and I think they can scheme to cover up and support the MLB spot and still put together a really really good D this year. That's my best guess and I think it's a very reasonable one.

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Shaw, that bit about Beane just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

If we know one thing about Beane it's that he doesn't feel the need to lie. If he doesn't want to answer something, he does what people who don't lie do, he refuses to answer, or he replies in platitudes that don't strictly answer the question or he changes the subject. 

 

What he doesn't do is repeatedly lie.

 

And again and again he's said that he wanted to keep Edmunds. "We love him. Didn't want to lose him." But knew they wouldn't be able to afford him. And similar things at other times. He didn't say this once. He said it repeatedly and consistently. He didn't have to say that, but he did. Could've gone with, "Tremaine is a warrior. I want him next to me in a foxhole. But the NFL is a business." Instead he said at every opportunity that he wanted him back but that it would probably be impossible to afford.

 

The idea that not paying him means he didn't want him simply doesn't make sense. It means what he said it means, that they can't pay him that much money right now without doing more damage to the team. You say that Tremaine isn't "ideal"? Well fair enough, but how many guys on this team are ideal? Two, maybe, who are damn close? He would have easily been the best option for this year - at the absolute least - if finances weren't involved. But they are.

 

He makes financial disqualifications on guys he'd rather keep/bring in all of the time. So does every GM.

 

Agreed that Beane is doing a terrific job. And I think it's really a reasonable argument that this is his strongest roster in his term, and he's put together some excellent rosters.

 

Agreed about most of the rest of your post. This is a really good-looking team, and I think they can scheme to cover up and support the MLB spot and still put together a really really good D this year. That's my best guess and I think it's a very reasonable one.

Good stuff, Thurm.  I think it's all true.   I'm saying something different.   I'm saying they didn't pay him what he cost because he isn't their ideal MLB.   He simply wasn't worth upsetting the salary structure for.    

 

I think, without knowing, that it would be different if they had a current version of Luke Keuchly.   A true star in the middle is very valuable, but there aren't many true stars.   They drafted Edmunds because they envisioned him being a true star.   He didn't become that.  Instead, he became a guy who was very useful in the middle, and Beane decided he could get someone who is very useful in the middle for a lot less money.   

 

Nothing you quoted from Beane said "we just didn't have the money."   Beane does tell the truth, but he often doesn't tell the whole story.  So, when he said he'd really like to keep Edmunds, he meant "keep Edmunds at a price that makes sense."  I think the whole story is they couldn't agree on a contract because Edmunds wanted to be in the top money category and for the Bills, he was in only the "useful" category, which is millions of dollars less per year.   I don't think Edmunds and the Bills ever got close in the negotiations.   

[Dopey]

MLB competition has been over for a while.

 

Braves all the way!!!!

My Yankees suck!!!

[PBF81]

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Your claim is that some GMs aren't good at "the replacement-planning aspect of it," and your way of backing that up is that you want to claim that your way of attacking the same situation would have been to pick Dean by trading up in the third round of 2022 to get an MLB rather than do what Beane did in picking an MLB in the third round of 2022? When both MLBs have played a bunch of STs and a similar handful of defensive snaps as rookies, with Bernard having played 110 to Dean's 34? Seriously?  

 

The idea's a bit dopey. That's not a planning problem. Might turn out to be the wrong pick, certainly. 

 

Or not.

 

We'll see down the road.

 

You sure are cynical and like to find the best in people, don't ya.   

 

Actually, all I was doing was suggesting whom I would have picked instead of Cook.  Beane's going to sink or swim on his own merits apart from my irrelevant opionions.  Cook appears to be a fine RB, but as you said, it may (or may not be) the better/worse pick, time will tell.   But he's never had a full-time load and really isn't a 3-down back.  My point is that Dean was projected and is a 3-down MLB and would have filled one hole all by himself, apart from being a beast at UGA while playing against talent that was premier draft capital.  RBs are much less expensive and easier to come by than RBs, which should be blatantly apparent.  

 

Feel free to spin it and my emotional mindset any way you like.  

 

So much for the civility in our exchange.  LOL  I'm sorryh I responded.  

 

 

[BillsFanSD]

Nothing against Tyrel Dodson, but it's kind of infuriating that we couldn't (so far) find anyone better.  He's not even a particularly good backup MLB.  I get that it's a devalued position and all, but still this is a glaring hole in the starting 11.

[Buffalo_Stampede]

1 minute ago, BillsFanSD said:

Nothing against Tyrel Dodson, but it's kind of infuriating that we couldn't (so far) find anyone better.  He's not even a particularly good backup MLB.  I get that it's a devalued position and all, but still this is a glaring hole in the starting 11.

They didn’t even try to upgrade MLB. People need to stop worrying about a position the Bills aren’t worrying about. They feel confident in their plan. We’ll see if it works.

 

 

[BarleyNY]

5 minutes ago, BillsFanSD said:

Nothing against Tyrel Dodson, but it's kind of infuriating that we couldn't (so far) find anyone better.  He's not even a particularly good backup MLB.  I get that it's a devalued position and all, but still this is a glaring hole in the starting 11.

 

The only point I’d disagree with is the positional importance of MLBs. It was a severely devalued position, but recently that has been changing. Off the ball LBs won’t surpass Edge/pass rushers or CBs anytime soon, but LBs are in the tier right after them. The resurgence is likely due to the changes we’ve seen in their responsibilities. No longer are they just downhill run defenders who are asked to cover grass on passing plays. Now they have full fledged coverage responsibilities and still have to be able to play the run and blitz effectively.

 

Last season Edmunds finally developed into an excellent MLB and this defense is going to miss him. I was perfectly fine with the Bills walking away when his price tag got into the range it did, but I was not happy with them not bringing in a quality replacement. They should have made something work in FA. I think they thought that they could use the teams success to lure Lavonte David or another top FA MLB here, but failed to do so. 

[PBF81]

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I just read what Thurm said and your reply.   Outstanding!

 

I don't know, either, if the bolded part of what Thurm said is really accurate.  I mean, I know they said nice things about Edmunds and all, but I think when you look at the bigger picture, I think what they said meant something else.   I think if we could have a frank one-on-one conversation with Beane or McDermott or both, they would tell you that the middle linebacker they want, in a perfect world, is not Edmunds and it is not any of the guys currently on the roster.  I think the fact that Beane did not write a big check tells us that Edmunds is not their ideal linebacker, and the fact that he did not go after a middle linebacker any more aggressively than a third-round rookie tells us that the Bills have the talent on the roster to play the position at a level that McDermott can work with it.   In other words, Edmunds isn't Keuchly so the Bills wouldn't pay him, and the current guys aren't Edmunds but they're good enough.  

 

I really don't like it when people come on here and say, "this is what I would have done in the draft," which is what you said.  But you qualified it in exactly the right way - water under the bridge.  You guys both recognize that the GM has an entire roster to build, that it's a multi-year problem that changes from year to year and even month to month.   Between the salary cap and the draft, there aren't enough resources to build it all perfectly.  There is an endless stream of tradeoffs being made, and they involve educated guesses about players and the future.  

 

I've come to realize, again, that McBeane are doing exactly what they said they were going to do when they came to Buffalo.  They said they were going to build a roster that was going to get better, year after year.   I think that is exactly what has happened.  We all can argue about this position or that position, but it's looking to me like this roster is the best roster we've seen for the Bills in this century.  I mean, people are arguing about the #2 wideout.  Really?   Half the teams in the league, or more, would insert Gabe Davis into their starting lineups immediately, and the Bills have Shakir, Sheffield, and Harty ready to go, as well, and TWO starting tight ends!  I'd prefer a running back room with McCoy and Fred Jackson, but the Bills have a really solid running back room.  They have a top five defensive line and a top five defensive backfield.  So, we're left with talking about what is really only a RELATIVE lack of experience and talent at middle linebacker.  

 

I'm really looking forward to seeing this team play.

 

Thanks for your post. 

 

Likewise, thanks!  

 

See my prior post, all I was doing was laying out an very good option at MLB last draft as an alternate look that would have solved the problem, insofar as I mentioned the planning aspect.  As to "saying what I would have done," I've been asked that many times by others on this particular topic, so merely anteing up there, and again, as merely an example of what I'm referring to.  Take it any way you want, but it would have been a solution to a problem that we have that given the change, would have resulted in an advantage for us since Cook was hardly pivotal to our winning last season, nor is he likely to be anything close to a lynchpin this season.  He's never carried a full-time load, therefore isn't a 3-down RB and likely never will be, and as such is a situational player or role-playing RB.  I'd have more faith in Harris as a 3-down RB if we could only have one RB. 

 

A solid MLB may have very well been a massive difference.  "Planning" in that way is a skill.  There's a large difference between the skills of being able to ID talent and then managing that talent, largely positionally speaking as a collective, over the course of many years.  Consider it the types of skills that Project Managers put to use, as merely one discipline.  Some project managers are better than others, common sense.  I find it to be along the lines of a Critical Path Method approach, which is a separate skill from "Sports Management," player development, contract management, or the like.  

 

I agree with most of your post, where I would differ somewhat is in that Beane's building of our roster is clearly heavy on free-agency, where the costs of attaining players, good players that is, much less impact players, are at a premium, and where the associated risks are therefore greater.  We've also signed numerous free agents that simply haven't been worth the money.   As to this year's crop, we don't know whether Floyd's going to play the way he did in LA yet.  He's also not a 3-down starting LB, and he backs up Miller, so if Miller's fine, then our need for Floyd diminishes because presumably both would rarely be on the field.  If Miller's not fine, that raises other questions in the context of our discussion, does it not.  We also aren't sure whether Miller comes back at 80% much less 100%.  If he doesn't, then the risk having played out will have been greater than the benefit of that signing.  That much isn't even disputable.  We'll see how it all unfolds.  Simply because Miller's "sprinting across the field at near full speed" at camp is all but meaningless.  Hopefully he'll be the same player, but if he were on another team, I doubt we'd all be betting that he will be at 34.  It's because he's a Bill that we're all optimistic.  In fact, the sentiment might even be the opposite.  

 

Where Beane's been heavily criticized by many, both internally as well as externally insofar as Bills' fans and media go, is in his drafts, where it's very difficult to suggest that he's gotten the value from his picks that he should be or should have gotten given where they were drafted.  We can argue that, but more people than not take that angle.  It is that which I am referring to.  A simple analysis of our drafts will tell us that much.  

 

That's largely what I'm referring to.  I would agree that our offense looks the best that it's ever looked, and we'll see, but I'm thinking that our defense falters to somewhere much closer to average this season, with at least some of that having to do with our LB situation.  The DL may look great in camp, but that's deceiving, as anyone that's made such observations over the course of a bunch of years should realize by now.  I don't even pay attention to camp stuff other than injuries and the like, in terms of performance standards.  And how many times have we seen a player light up the preseason yet to be cut.  It's far from rare.  

 

So to sum up, on the defensive side, given the wealth of draft resources that we've put into our D in general and DL in particular, IMO it's nothing to crow about.  

 

Offensively, we should have been drafting like this for the five years prior until we had a solid OL in front of Allen and better targets otherwise.  Our defense, while good during the regular seasons in three of the last four seasons, very average otherwise, has failed us miserably come playoff time.   On a side note, in two of those "better years," our schedule has been soft.  This season it is not.  Offense is what wins in this league today.  

 

If all goes well, as stated, I expect our offense to be #1 in the league, set records, and hopefully bring us a championship.  If not, there'll be plenty of time to ask the tough questions following the season.  

 

Also, it's interesting that you mention Davis as such.  I got into an exchange here recently whereby I'm told that Mahomes' second-rate WRs in KC aren't going to matter.  But here, not having a solid #2 is a problem.  LOL  I'm not even sure KC has what Davis is on their roster.  I agree with you on Davis, and I'm probably even more optimistic than you there.  If I had to wager right now, I'd wager that Davis exceeds 1,000 yards and 10 TDs this season.  He's been one of Beane's best draft picks, despite being a 4th rounder.  He's outshone 8 of the WRs drafted ahead of him that season, including the 1st overall WR taken, and hast more TDs than all but one WR from that draft class, Jefferson.  

 

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by PBF81

[PBF81]

And BTW, KC won one SB and appeared in another with not the 1st-ranked offense, but the 5th and 6th ranked offenses, with 7th and 10th ranked defenses respectively. 

 

In those seasons, Green Bay, us, Tampa, Tennessee, and New Orleans were ranked better than them in points scored in 2020, and in 2019 Baltimore, San Fran, Tampa, and New Orleans ranked ahead of them in scoring offense.  

 

KC scored 473 and 451 in those two seasons.  Our offense has scored 455, 483, and 501 the past three seasons going backwards.  KC put up 496 points last season.  I can see us putting up 550+ this season.  

 

 

[Shaw66]

42 minutes ago, PBF81 said:

 

Likewise, thanks!  

 

See my prior post, all I was doing was laying out an very good option at MLB last draft as an alternate look that would have solved the problem, insofar as I mentioned the planning aspect.  As to "saying what I would have done," I've been asked that many times by others on this particular topic, so merely anteing up there, and again, as merely an example of what I'm referring to.  Take it any way you want, but it would have been a solution to a problem that we have that given the change, would have resulted in an advantage for us since Cook was hardly pivotal to our winning last season, nor is he likely to be anything close to a lynchpin this season.  He's never carried a full-time load, therefore isn't a 3-down RB and likely never will be, and as such is a situational player or role-playing RB.  I'd have more faith in Harris as a 3-down RB if we could only have one RB. 

 

A solid MLB may have very well been a massive difference.  "Planning" in that way is a skill.  There's a large difference between the skills of being able to ID talent and then managing that talent, largely positionally speaking as a collective, over the course of many years.  Consider it the types of skills that Project Managers put to use, as merely one discipline.  Some project managers are better than others, common sense.  I find it to be along the lines of a Critical Path Method approach, which is a separate skill from "Sports Management," player development, contract management, or the like.  

 

I agree with most of your post, where I would differ somewhat is in that Beane's building of our roster is clearly heavy on free-agency, where the costs of attaining players, good players that is, much less impact players, are at a premium, and where the associated risks are therefore greater.  We've also signed numerous free agents that simply haven't been worth the money.   As to this year's crop, we don't know whether Floyd's going to play the way he did in LA yet.  He's also not a 3-down starting LB, and he backs up Miller, so if Miller's fine, then our need for Floyd diminishes because presumably both would rarely be on the field.  If Miller's not fine, that raises other questions in the context of our discussion, does it not.  We also aren't sure whether Miller comes back at 80% much less 100%.  If he doesn't, then the risk having played out will have been greater than the benefit of that signing.  That much isn't even disputable.  We'll see how it all unfolds.  Simply because Miller's "sprinting across the field at near full speed" at camp is all but meaningless.  Hopefully he'll be the same player, but if he were on another team, I doubt we'd all be betting that he will be at 34.  It's because he's a Bill that we're all optimistic.  In fact, the sentiment might even be the opposite.  

 

Where Beane's been heavily criticized by many, both internally as well as externally insofar as Bills' fans and media go, is in his drafts, where it's very difficult to suggest that he's gotten the value from his picks that he should be or should have gotten given where they were drafted.  We can argue that, but more people than not take that angle.  It is that which I am referring to.  A simple analysis of our drafts will tell us that much.  

 

That's largely what I'm referring to.  I would agree that our offense looks the best that it's ever looked, and we'll see, but I'm thinking that our defense falters to somewhere much closer to average this season, with at least some of that having to do with our LB situation.  The DL may look great in camp, but that's deceiving, as anyone that's made such observations over the course of a bunch of years should realize by now.  I don't even pay attention to camp stuff other than injuries and the like, in terms of performance standards.  And how many times have we seen a player light up the preseason yet to be cut.  It's far from rare.  

 

So to sum up, on the defensive side, given the wealth of draft resources that we've put into our D in general and DL in particular, IMO it's nothing to crow about.  

 

Offensively, we should have been drafting like this for the five years prior until we had a solid OL in front of Allen and better targets otherwise.  Our defense, while good during the regular seasons in three of the last four seasons, very average otherwise, has failed us miserably come playoff time.   On a side note, in two of those "better years," our schedule has been soft.  This season it is not.  Offense is what wins in this league today.  

 

If all goes well, as stated, I expect our offense to be #1 in the league, set records, and hopefully bring us a championship.  If not, there'll be plenty of time to ask the tough questions following the season.  

 

Also, it's interesting that you mention Davis as such.  I got into an exchange here recently whereby I'm told that Mahomes' second-rate WRs in KC aren't going to matter.  But here, not having a solid #2 is a problem.  LOL  I'm not even sure KC has what Davis is on their roster.  I agree with you on Davis, and I'm probably even more optimistic than you there.  If I had to wager right now, I'd wager that Davis exceeds 1,000 yards and 10 TDs this season.  He's been one of Beane's best draft picks, despite being a 4th rounder.  He's outshone 8 of the WRs drafted ahead of him that season, including the 1st overall WR taken, and hast more TDs than all but one WR from that draft class, Jefferson.  

 

 

All good and interesting stuff.

 

It makes me think that you (and I) don't understand enough about their philosophy about team building.   I think if you and I could have a frank conversation with Beane, he could explain the rationale of his drafting, and the success of it.   There are some principles at work that we all hate to admit.

 

One principle is that it's difficult, very difficult, to get a real star in the late picks of the first round.   You can't get a Tre White there every season; in fact, he was more of an anomaly.  It's more likely that you'll get a Rousseau, or worse.   The result of that is that not every year will you get a guy that you'll want to write a big check for in five years.

 

Another principle is that the first principle is even more true about offensive linemen.  In the bottom of the first round, the stud tackles are gone, and in the bottom of the second round the stud guards are gone.   Maybe they luck out with Torrence.   Given where the Bills pick in the draft, if they want a stud tackle or a stud center, they're going to have to spend major draft capital to trade up in the first round.  

 

The third principle is that because of the second principle, you have to get more linemen out of free agency.   The second and third principle are both true in part because offensive linemen are unprepared for the pro game when they come out of college.   Most of them have a lot to learn, and it takes many of them years to learn it.   

 

The result of that is, I think, that the Bills have decided that it's a better use of their resources to look for a Conner McGovern and to be opportunistic when a Torrence falls to you.  

 

There are arguments to be made about that approach, for sure, but I think what they're doing is something along those lines. 

 

Another principle is that they have particular relative values of positions.   I think, for example, that just like most other teams, the Bills don't want to spend high picks on running backs.   And, as I've thought about middle linebacker, I think they also don't like to spend high picks on linebackers.   I think the middle linebacker position may be in the process of being devalued like running back.  It's the position in the defense where you can get by without a stud.   When you look at how the Bills play defense, I think there's a good argument to me made that the middle linebacker is the LEAST most important position, behind eight defensive linemen, two safeties, the outside linebacker and three corners.   That sounds like sacrilege, but really, is there any other explanation for the failure to commit resources to the position?   They think that that position, more than any other on the defense, can be filled by any committed athlete with the right speed and quickness.   

 

My bottom line is that these guys definitely are not stupid, and they have well thought out reasons for what they've done and what they're doing.  

 

Might they be wrong?  Oh, sure.  Absolutely.   They make some bad decisions, because everyone makes some bad decisions.  But I've gotten way past the point where I think I'm seeing things that they haven't already seen and considered.   

Edited August 14, 2023 by Shaw66

[PBF81]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

All good and interesting stuff.

 

It makes me think that you (and I) don't understand enough about their philosophy about team building.   I think if you and I could have a frank conversation with Beane, he could explain the rationale of his drafting, and the success of it.   There are some principles at work that we all hate to admit.  

 

That's a great point.  Having said it however, there are things that we might do differently.  I mean consider, many many other GMs have come and gone and made errors ranging from some blitheringly idiotic mistakes to moderate ones.  To suggest that any given GM, including him, is flawless or perfect would also be a mistake.  That's what leaves topics to discussion open.  But yes, that would be quite interesting.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

One principle is that it's difficult, very difficult, to get a real star in the late picks of the first round.   You can't get a Tre White there every season; in fact, he was more of an anomaly.  It's more likely that you'll get a Rousseau, or worse.   The result of that is that not every year will you get a guy that you'll want to write a big check for in five years.

 

Another principle is that the first principle is even more true about offensive linemen.  In the bottom of the first round, the stud tackles are gone, and in the bottom of the second round the stud guards are gone.   Maybe they luck out with Torrence.   Given where the Bills pick in the draft, if they want a stud tackle or a stud center, they're going to have to spend major draft capital to trade up in the first round.  

 

The third principle is that because of the second principle, you have to get more linemen out of free agency.   The second and third principle are both true in part because offensive linemen are unprepared for the pro game when they come out of college.   Most of them have a lot to learn, and it takes many of them years to learn it.   

 

The result of that is, I think, that the Bills have decided that it's a better use of their resources to look for a Conner McGovern and to be opportunistic when a Torrence falls to you.  

 

There are arguments to be made about that approach, for sure, but I think what they're doing is something along those lines.  

 

Good points.  Agree that there are some positions for which one has better luck in certain rounds.  For example, if it were me, I would make it a rule as a GM to almost never draft a WR in the first half (16 or so picks) in the 1st-round.  

 

Other rounds are deep one year, not deep the next.  Per our ongoing conversation, I would factor that in heavily into my methodology because that's how you get more and better value, by getting x-round guys a round or so later than they'd normally go in a draft with normal depth in the draft at that position.  Correspondingly, I would also avoid putting myself in the position of needing a player at the K-position, when that particular Draft is sparse on K-position players.  Make sense?  

 

You also implied a great point, that OL-men are generally unprepared for the pro-game coming out of college.  Hence the need to foresee the need a year out.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Another principle is that they have particular relative values of positions.   I think, for example, that just like most other teams, the Bills don't want to spend high picks on running backs.   And, as I've thought about middle linebacker, I think they also don't like to spend high picks on linebackers.   I think the middle linebacker position may be in the process of being devalued like running back.  It's the position in the defense where you can get by without a stud.   When you look at how the Bills play defense, I think there's a good argument to me made that the middle linebacker is the LEAST most important position, behind eight defensive linemen, two safeties, the outside linebacker and three corners.   That sounds like sacrilege, but really, is there any other explanation for the failure to commit resources to the position?   They think that that position, more than any other on the defense, can be filled by any committed athlete with the right speed and quickness.   

 

I've actually given consideration to the possible notion that the MLB position is being phased out as well, but I'm simply not seeing the reality of that.  Could be me.  LOL  

 

As to the italicized part above, the only other explanation is as I've addressed, a failure to properly plan.  Despite what we each think individually, it is a possibility.  

 

Otherwise, coaches, from my observation, often (not always) focus on the part of the team that they're most familiar with in addressing first, i.e., when they first become head coaches.  Using us as an example ,McD both played and came from the DBs/Secondary in terms of coaching.  That's the first unit he spent resources on when he got here.  Whether that was the fastest way to success, who knows, but that's what he did.  Good coaches look at the team as a whole and spread out their resources in order to build the most optimal team.  

 

When I look at a roster for possibilities in FAcy or the Draft, I look at where I can gain the biggest possible margin of utility overall.  As an example, let's say there's a position where we are currently getting a 3 level of play (1-to-10 scale) and we have an opportunity to add a guy that's a 7.  That's a bigger leap in play, and likely overall performance of the team, than improving another position from a 6 to an 8 and at much greater expense, rendering the opportunity cost much higher as well.  

 

That's why I've always maintained that it's better to have a team full of players at the 5-7 level, minus a QB of course, than it is to have a team with four or five guys at a 7-9 level and the rest at a 3-5 level.  The latter's likely to cost as much or more as the former.   Continuity and chemistry also factor in heavily.  

 

We could discuss this to the nines.  LOL  

 

 

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

My bottom line is that these guys definitely are not stupid, and they have well thought out reasons for what they've done and what they're doing.  

 

Might they be wrong?  Oh, sure.  Absolutely.   They make some bad decisions, because everyone makes some bad decisions.  But I've gotten way past the point where I think I'm seeing things that they haven't already seen and considered.   

 

They're definitely not stupid, but at the same time, for anyone to suggest that they're expert in every single facet of what makes a great coach a great coach, or a great GM a great GM, is also a mistake.  They also do this as a full-time job and have massive staffs to assist, which is where they get much of their intel from on how good players are, which depends then upon how good those people are, not merely the GM.  That's not to say that someone couldn't do similar analysis on a less broad scale and come up with astute and accurate conclusions.   Again, that's what opens up the discussions.  

 

I'll finish this post with one close to home example.  It may not sit well with everyone, but nonetheless.  McD finally takes over the D this season.  If it falters significantly, there are conclusions to be drawn.  Right now, here, the narrative is that he's a defensive expert among the best.  I've not seen that yet.  In Carolina it wasn't true as his Ds were all over the map, below average in 4 of 6 seasons.  So this season is pivotal in either supporting or challenging that narrative.  

 

BTW, I'm bigger on Torrence than you are.  In fact, I was harsh on the Kincaid pick because of the status of our OL.  I relented once we drafted Torrence because IMO OL was a desperate need and one that we've largely ignored other than in volume, but not quality.  Torrence was projected as a 1st-round prospect by some.  

 

I think we'll be fine assuming that McGovern is as good as they say he is.  

 

 

[oldmanfan]

Dodson will “start” at the one LB spot but there will be a lot of moving parts there.  You’ll see Rapp on the field with 5 other DBs a lot.  You may see 3 LB spots with Klein in with Dodson and Milano, or Williams instead of Klein.  You’ll see Bernard once he gets over his hammy.  And so on.  I suspect McD learned a bit from Frazier’s defensive calls that it was time to shake things up and get more unpredictable.  Whether it works or not remains to be seen but there’s a lot of talent on that side of the ball.