Thurman#1

There's no particular reason to think that there's a direct relationship between time with the 1s and how far ahead or behind a guy is. In fact, how confident are you that Allen had the most time with the 1s? McCarron started game 2 and game 4. Not that that matters anyway. Plenty of coaches put other guys in once they know which guy will start. Lamar Jackson got the most time in Baltimore. Was he real close too? Mayfield got a lot more time than Tyrod. I could go on.

Yeah, learning from the bench didn't work for Brees, Rodgers and Brady, the three finest QBs in the game, so why should we ... Oh, wait. It did. There's a reason why virtually all coaches believe that spending time on the bench helps guys. And the reason is because it does work. Same reason why pilot schools don't say, "!@#$ it, they don't need simulator time, nobody learns from that, just throw 'em behind the stick of a loaded 727." It all works. Mental reps work. Time to practice mechanics work. Time to study film of NFL defences works. It all works. That doesn't mean that everybody needs it. But it does mean for a rookie riding the bench that if all he learns is how to hold a clipboard he's not going to turn out to be a good NFL QB. McDermott is among the people who believes that time on the bench works, and we know that because if he didn't, Allen himself wouldn't have specifically said that "... sometimes quarterbacks can get thrown in there too early and that can have a snowball effect on them during your career. So coach is going to do the smart thing." - Josh Allen https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2018-nfl-training-camps-bills-wont-rush-josh-allen-into-starting-qb-role/

Yeah, but he believes he'll get more. Nothing wrong with that. And nothing wrong with the Steelers not wanting to pay him more either ... or the players reacting angrily for that matter. It's all a part of today's game, an interesting situation. And by the way, this is a small point, but worth making ... they aren't trying to pay him $70 million. They're trying to give him a contract which would pay him $70 million if he stays on the team for the duration of the contract. I don't think the details are out there yet on how much he would make if he got a career-ending injury after one year, or if he wore out in two years and was cut. The exact details of contracts are very important, making contracts much more or less inviting than just the final figure. We've all seen back-loaded contract offers like SF's offer for Nate Clements where the final figure was huge but the last year or two had him receiving a large percentage of that big figure. He had never been intended to receive that whole figure and sure enough was cut just before those huge numbers kicked in. Is the Bell contract like that? I have no idea, but we don't know, do we?

It's an old idiom or cliche. You can find it in the urban dictionary. It's a very old saying. Was around when I was a boy and that was a while. Means you can count on a person for consistency. It's been around since before Steady Eddie Murray, who was a terrific player by the way. Very consistent. And a Hall of Famer. EDIT: Here's a 1962 vintage "Steady Eddie" balancing game. Murray's rookie year was 1977. And Milton Bradley didn't make up the name, they just used it. It's been around a long time. https://www.amazon.com/Steady-Eddie-Balancing-Original-Version/dp/B00B5TOHBS And Hockey Hall of Famer Ed Giacomin was another Steady Eddie. Mel Allen used to call Yankee pitcher Ed Lopat (1944 - 1955, 166 - 112, career ERA 3.21) Steady Eddie. Again, it's a really old phrase.

As you should. It was really smart on 6/29, three days into camp, and still holds up. Great post. I see, so being wrong is OK if you can argue that you may possibly have been "awfully close" to being right? Got it. Hey, if you think that 55% completions vs. 80% completions is "awfully close," I guess that's your business.

My reasoning was wrong? That's a laugh. In TransieWorld, it's dumb to be right? Apparently we should listen to the guy who continues his spotless record of being absolutely wrong about QBs, wrong without exception, continuously, relentlessly wrong. You thought I was ridiculously wrong when I said he had a very small chance to start. And yet ... I was right. As per always in my arguments with you. Remember when you said Tyrod was "near-elite"? Yeah, me too. Exactly the response you predicted in your last sentence, right? There's two reasons for that. First, because I was right and you were wrong. Again. But second, I wanted you to feel that you'd been right in at least one prediction. Get you the feeling, since it will be a new one for you. Maybe if you enjoyed it, you could ease up on the massive doses of Kool-Aid. Nah, didn't think so. I asked too much. For all those times you were wrong, who was on the other side? Me, among many many sensible others. You're not getting it, but the reason that you're wrong is that your reasoning is wrong. Consistently, relentlessly. It's come to be a self-evident truth that when you tell someone their reasoning is off, it's a fantastic sign that that person is on the exact right track. McCarron was traded because he wasn't as good as Peterman. Or Allen. McCarron underachieved and they were able to get a 5th for him. That's why he was traded. Duh indeed. As usual you're taking data points and applying massive dollops of confirmation bias until it looks to you like they mean what you believe. You could say the same thing about me except for one thing. I'm the guy who's been relentlessly consistently right. And not because I'm some genius. I'm not. I simply don't take positions that aren't fairly obvious. Which is the way to go if you want a realistic viewpoint. Which you clearly don't. It's been fairly obvious that they wanted to give Allen time to develop, unless he'd improved massively. And he'd clearly improved but not enough. That quote from him after game three when he talked about going to the line and not understanding what the (preseason vanilla) defence was showing was one of many tipoffs that he needs more time, but again, it was obvious from before the draft, back when you insisted - again, relentlessly - that Allen was a loser who would never be a decent starting QB. Remember that, Transy? It's also been fairly obvious that Allen was simply not winning the QB contest, from way back in offseason workouts. I'm not making any statements on when Allen starts. For the simplest of reasons ... it's wildly unpredictable. The Week One starter was the opposite, extremely predictable. But when or if Allen starts is not easy to predict. Peterman could suck or be great, or more likely be good for several weeks until teams start to figure out how to defense him and he has to learn to adapt and he either does or - like Tyrod - doesn't. Peterman could be injured. Allen could develop slower or faster than expected. Too many unknowns, so I'm not taking any stance beyond acknowledging the unpredictability of it. Could be three or four weeks. Could be next season. Again, though, the Week One starter not being Allen was predictable as hell. It was absolutely zero surprise. In fact, the operative word was ... Duh, Transie.

Of course you're sticking with what you have said all along. You stuck with Tyrod right up to the end too. That's who you are. That's what you do ... to paraphrase Terminator. You pick a guy and think too much of him ... with absolute unwavering consistency. And yeah, Bills fans wanted Allen. That's what most fans do. They pick the heralded new guy and want to see him immediately. They choose the short term over the long term. They take the perspective of a person wanting entertainment rather than the perspective of a guy whose job prospects depend on the long-term success of the team and the QB in particular. And as for Allen not starting the first game, one word ... Duh.

The article you link to does NOT show that Brees throws slower than Peterman. I checked the Sports Science episode it refers to and yeah, Brees threw at 52 MPH. But he wasn't throwing for speed. He was throwing in an attempt to hit a very small target from 20 yards away. Which he did an amazing 10 out of 10 times. And all 10 times he threw he threw at 52 MPH. But clearly when you're going for accuracy you're not going to throw it as fast as you can. Generally at the combine guys are throwing as hard as they can when their speed is measure. But more, speed and velocity can improve over a career, so it's hard to know whether Peterman is throwing at the same speed he was at the combine. He spent all of last off-season working on his throwing motion trying to improve his speed. In any case, the comparison between Brees and Peterman is a major reach. Though you can probably find a few similarities, the major comparison - success and ability as an NFL QB - shouldn't be even looked at until/unless Peterman has a great deal more success than he currently has mustered.

Nah, as FadingPain said above, they don't base their bets on what they believe will happen. They base it on finding precisely the line that will as evenly as possible divide bettors into negative and positive on the bet.

I didn't misinterpret your question. You're a troll, and you were trolling. It's quite clear. I was addressing others in the thread who were worth talking to. "If you hate the Bills ..." is extremely clear, it's simply a dumb prologue to a thread title on here. Isn't it, Bills Fans. 'Nuff said, don't need to feed this guy.

It's his second year. We don't yet know what he is, and while some of your negatives are very reasonable, others are only based on his behavior as a rookie, and he has improved a lot since then. Every QB looks different under pressure, which is why most of the emphasis on stopping the passing game comes down to pressuring the QB. Whether Peterman will look worse than any other QB under pressure will be something we'll see over the course of his career. I don't expect an injury, though it's certainly possible. My guess is that the OL improves over the course of the year as they gel, though I don't expect them ever to be good this year.

Oh, please. It's completely and totally reasonable for a Bills fan to think the GM is horrible and that we'll stink this year. Completely and totally reasonable to think the opposite too. Yours is an utterly ridiculous question. Yes, there are a few trolls here. Everyone else loves the Bills, even if they have doubts about their current direction.

Tomczak retired while Roethliberger was still in high school. Do you mean Tommy Maddox? Not a good comparison, IMHO. The Steelers knew who Maddox was. He was an eighth-year man when Roethlisberger was a rookie. And he'd been the Steelers starter for two years. The main thrust, that this team is committed to Allen in the long run seems obvious. There's no reason to think that they are committed to Allen this year. They could easily think that they'd like to sit him for the year if things work out that way, particularly if the teams started with some wins. Maybe even if they don't. I don't see any controversy coming, though. I have a lot of faith in McD to handle the locker room.

Did Cleveland clear the way for their rookie QB? Arizona? Most teams ... do different things depending on how ready they think the rookie QB is. And yeah, there'll be drama among fans. The locker room? No reason to think so. They handled the Peterman - Tyrod deal just fine even when it blew up. They hung in with McD. They'll almost certainly do so here as well.

Nah, he's worth the money NE pays him. If he wasn't, Belichick would cut him in a heartbeat. He does what they ask him to do, and he's productive. Hogan's the 57th highest paid WR in football.

I'm glad I never have brain farts or make careless mistakes.

No particular reason to think that's true. Yeah, right now it's the headline, but he doesn't need a Super Bowl win, just a couple of years as a starter somewhere, one of which is pretty good. Having one awful performance ... as a rookie ... isn't a career definer. It certainly is a rookie year definer, and is reasonably the first thing people think about right now when they think of the one most memorable thing about him. But if he hangs around for a while and does some things, those will supercede this. Yup.

I know that this board and everyone's exact position on Allen has become such a bizarre obsession for you - same as it was during your near-insane obsession with Tyrod and a few before - that you think that people stay away or come here the way that you do ... tactically and with near complete preoccupation. That's not me, particularly these days. I don't "go into hiding," as if anyone would have to hide from the likes of you, a bizarre and funny idea you have about your importance and the importance of the whole issue. I simply have one of those things you show no signs of having ... a life. I came back now because I had a bit of time during my insanely wonderful six week trip back home in the U.S. And while I don't remember for sure when or how much, I've absolutely been here commenting on the past couple of preaseason games. Just haven't papered the walls with obsessions the way you do. I found five or ten posts to be plenty. I get it that that might seem bizarre to a guy who has, after looking back at your record, written 16 posts in the last 24 hours, every one in threads about Allen or Peterman ... a guy who you have to go back around 35 posts to find anything not about Allen or his competitors or even ex-crush that you just can't let go of, Tyrod ... yeah, I guess a guy with a posting record like that would find it bizarre that people might actually not have a somewhat disturbing obsession with a Buffalo Bills QB. But in fact, the guy who you replied to above had a very reasonable opinion. And you, as is your habit, misstated what he'd said ... and then labeled his opinion "incorrect". Again, typical for you to confuse your opinion for a fact. And yes, you were wildly mis-stating what he said. He said, "I don't understand why everyone is trying so hard to forget that he was a major project coming out of Wyoming." And you immediately replied , "Please stop pushing the narrative Allen is still a huge project who needs 2-3 years on the bench." A typical straw man setup from you, misstating what someone said and then attacking your own words as if they'd been said by someone else. And as for me saying he had a five percent chance to start week one ... well, sorta. What I actually said was that he had around a five percent chance ... unless the other Bills suffered injuries that set them back, and unless Allen was a whole ton better than he is expected to be. And he has been better, though not a whole ton, obviously. And an injury absolutely has pretty much set McCarron out of the competition, not that he was setting the world on fire anyway. The odds have changed. I'd probably give him a 25 or 30% chance now. And as for what people predicted, wasn't it you who said he had a chance of starting week one that was well over 50%? And are now rooting hard against it? The fact that the OL is likely to be pretty poor surprises nobody but you. It's been one of the main reasons cited since about the day after the draft for why Allen shouldn't start early and possibly not at all this year. ------------------------ Anyway, enough of Transplant's nonsense. Shouldn't have bothered with such tripe anyway. People are saying in this thread that sitting doesn't help you develop, that that's nonsense. Who disagrees with that? Josh Allen among others. "... sometimes quarterbacks can get thrown in there too early and that can have a snowball effect on them during your career. So coach is going to do the smart thing." - Josh Allen https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2018-nfl-training-camps-bills-wont-rush-josh-allen-into-starting-qb-role/ I love that the guy is this smart. But his lack of experience is huge. For those arguing he's ready, it sure doesn't look that way when he says something like this, "Sometimes when the play clock got a little low and I couldn't really dissect what they were doing and understanding what they were doing, it's tough on a quarterback." "The rookie admitting that he 'couldn't really dissect' what the defense was doing is more disappointing than the five sacks." http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000951742/article/bills-josh-allen-blames-self-for-five-sacks-vs-bengals Exactly. And the schemes were relatively vanilla this time of year. He needs more time and development.

Which it isn't. It's quite a reasonable opinion. The fact that he disagrees with the guy who by his own admission has been so consistently wrong on QBs - for years now - is actually a pretty good indicator that his opinion is very legit and sensible indeed.

Benching rookies doesn't delay processes like this. You can learn nearly as well from the sideline, especially so when you're talking about a guy who doesn't know NFL defenses well yet. And while we're already seeing choruses of "Allen only had long throws called for him while Peterman had shorter ones," it's far more likely that Peterman just better diagnosed what the defenses were giving him, made smarter and quicker reads and get the ball out quicker. Which is not surprising when you're comparing a second-year guy to a rookie before his first season has even started. You can reach a point where you've learned about as much as you can learn from the sidelines and need to get in and play to make significant progress. That point is well over the horizon at this point. And they're still facing mostly vanilla defenses as you'd expect in preseason games.

Hate? Please. So many of you people don't know what hate looks like. What you're seeing her is what happens when a guy looks like he's not ready yet. Most people seem to feel that anything other than unqualified jock-sniffing fanboy love is hate. And that ain't so.

Yeah yeah yeah. And all non-positivity is totally unacceptable and must be eradicated. The Kool-Aid Brigade demands it.

Maybe the 2nd greatest thing. The greatest thing was the 2017 season.

Play whoever makes Allen better down the road. We aren't winning a Super Bowl this year. The next 15 years or so are far more important. Pre-season games should NOT be taken as predictive. They're not.

Yeah, that and Ramsey is taking shots at an unproven rookie while Benjamin targeted a former league MVP. It's not a double standard. Trash talking other teams isn't really problematic. Trashing a guy you played with, and so closely, is.