Thurman#1

They're also saying that guys like Allen can have terrific NFL careers if they follow a path like Newton (the guy who our head coach and GM have history with) and Wentz have. They're saying he can be successful without improving his accuracy. And yet he apparently has improved his accuracy through mechanical improvements with Jordan Palmer. It's a question whether he'll maintain that improvement, but if he does then he should be a better guy than their analysis says he is.

"There is something to work with. He isn't Christian Hackenberg." I don't see anything bone-chilling in this whole thing. "When you compare him with the other three or four highest rated QBs in the class he's just behind them in key important areas." Yup, that's why he needs development. That's why he should sit for a while. It's worth noting. Could Beane have made a mistake and picked a bust? Yeah. Could Allen instead be a guy who with changes to his mechanics and time to pick up the pro game without the pressure of starting turn out to be terrific? Yeah, also possible. That's been the word on him since the beginning. He needs development. I do disagree with one thing they're saying, that guys like Rodgers and Brady can make lousy supporting casts look good. Not so much. Every QB needs a good OL. Without one even the Bradys and Rodgerses are going to look bad. Yeah, they can make lower-level receiving corps look good. But Allen, as has been documented, was under consistent pressure and running for his life. Even the best QBs have problems with that kind of situation. It's a universal about the position. They were right about Edmunds' run fits, he had a lot of problems in that area, but seems to be football smart and willing and capable of improving. He got better. I thought they were interesting about Harrison Phillips not being Kyle Williams II. I'd bought into that, but they make an excellent point, the styles are quite different.

Yeah, they have too much allegiance. That's probably why Tolbert's still on the roster. Oh, wait.

Peyton Manning and Russell Wilson were considered NFL-ready. Wilson was thought maybe too short, but ready. Rodgers was not ready. That's the difference. Agreed that different guys need different things. But we know what this guy needs. Everyone has told us. Jordan Palmer, who has worked with him closely specifically in working towards NFL success has said that the best course would be a year to sit and learn. And he's just agreeing with pretty much everyone else. I very much agree, though, that every decision needs to revolve around his development. Exactly right. Good point. If everyone has misread him and he's ready, great. But that just isn't the way any of this looks. This is why people didn't want him ... he needs development and he needs mechanical changes.

The D definitely looked better after that horrible stretch, even last year. But again, our schedule was pretty weak last year. And we're going to be youngish this year, IMHO. Oughta be interesting.

McCarron, maybe 75% Peterman, maybe 20% Allen, in case of injury or near-inhuman amounts of improvement

It's based on the fact that you can develop guys from the bench. That's a stone-cold fact. Mental reps count and cause improvement. Not throwing a guy in is ideal for a guy who needs to improve his mechanics, because he can imprint the correct movements. And lo and behold, Allen is just such a guy. He needs to get the mechanical movements deep into muscle memory, something you don't have time to worry about when you're game-planning as a rookie. There's a ton that can be learned when not starting. Putting a guy who's unprepared in early only makes him feel (correctly) that he's inadequate. It may be that he might be plenty adequate down the road, but feelings don't recognize distinctions like this. The three best QBs in the game, Rodgers, Brady and Brees, all spent their first year on the bench. Did this handicap their careers? Not at all. In fact, in Rodgers' case, he visibly improved a great deal from his first to his third season, all from the bench. He was awful in his first two preaseasons. It's not a waste having a guy learning on the bench.

I'd love to see them playing him Week 17 only. That would be great handling. Many have indeed said he should play earlier. Most of those are Bills fans. The draft folks said over and over he shouldn't be picked by a team that would play him early, that he needed a year or maybe even two of development. That's what the posters on this board said as well, and was often used as an argument against picking Allen. Only since he became a Bill have folks on here suddenly wanted to see him early. Playing a guy too early can really hurt him. There's certainly a chance he's a lot better than advertised. It's not likely that he'll be good enough to be intelligently and carefully played early this year. Even his own QB coach, Jordan Palmer, thinks he would be much better off being sat this year. If he does play, I only hope that it's a cold-blooded thoughtful decision, arrived at only from watching him and seeing where he is and what would most benefit him. Fan pressure and owner pressure should have absolutely zero impact on the decision.

Complete nonsense. If they're still at this level four or five years in, yeah, it'll be an indictment. But after one year of play, two drafts and two FA classes, only one of which has worn Bills blue in real games, it's very reasonable indeed to have an area or two that's been missed. Particularly when the last regime left them nailed against the lid of the salary cap. They had a ton of areas of concern. Of course they couldn't address all of them as well as they would like to have. It's still very early days.

You're right, I missed the Titans. Point still stands, though. Seven teams go 9-7 and only two get lucky enough to get in the playoffs. Both of those not particularly good teams were lucky enough to come from the AFC. We were 9-7 in 2014 too but weren't lucky enough to have a weak enough AFC that year. And if you didn't hear anyone saying the Titans were lucky it's probably because nobody in Buffalo gives a crap about Tennessee. They were lucky. Pretty much any team that's 9-7 and makes the playoffs is by definition lucky. They were either in a very weak division or a very weak conference. And it's beside the point that Baltimore was another team not really good enough to make the playoffs and we happened to fulfill the conditions to make the playoffs better than them. If they'd made the playoffs, they'd have been lucky. The Bills weren't lucky to beat the Ravens. They were lucky there wasn't another good team in the weak AFC. Did you even read my post? We weren't just lucky to have a very weak schedule. We also got lucky even within that. Atlanta lost Julio in our game, they're 10-6 and three of their losses come in a row right when they have to play us and one of those losses is to us and another to the Dolphins. We got spectacularly lucky to get them right at their weakest. Same with the Chiefs, exactly, a 10-6 team that we caught during their only a three-game losing streak when they also lost to the Jets and the Giants, and again we get them right at their weakest. It wasn't a little lucky, we got very lucky. But pretty much any team that makes the playoffs at 9-7 is getting lucky.

Of course they did. How many playoff teams this year got in without winning 10 games? One out of twelve. Us. The year before? Two out of twelve, one of which won their division with a 9-7. The year before that? Two out of twelve, both by winning their division, the 9-7 Washington and Texas teams. The year before that, 2014? One out of twelve, the 7-8 Panthers who won a horrible division. I could keep going but in the last four years, two teams have managed to get a wild-card birth without winning ten games. Of course we were lucky, wildly lucky, actually, to be in a weak AFC. And further lucky to have a really really easy schedule and luckier still that when we were scheduled against good teams we ran up against them when they were having losing streaks. We weren't a little lucky, we were very lucky.

He may be crusading. I haven't followed him and have no opinion on that. But he still raises a reasonable question. Yes, there's no way to know the answer. But in fact there's no way to know the answer of any question about the future. Still no reason not to ask questions and discuss. That's what we're here for. The reason people don't like it is that it's a somewhat negative question. The same question phrased positively would have raised not a single eyebrow here. Not one. Is anyone getting angry when people post the stories saying Allen's throwing well in OTAs, or that he's picking things up quickly in the QB room? Is anyone angry when in those threads people get excited and say, "I think we've got a winner here. Anyone agree?" Do we see hordes of people jump on those guys and say, "Hey, cut it out, you and your positive agenda. We haven't seen pads on and it's way too early to pose ludicrous questions like that?" Yes, it's too early to know. Probably will be for the next two or three years minimum. But it's not too early to ask questions.

Enough with the Roethlisberger comparisons here, or rather the 2004 Steelers comparison. The 2004 Steelers were the #1 defense in the league. In yards AND in points. They allowed opposing QBs a cumulative passer rating of 68.0 that year. This allowed them to lead the league -by nearly 80 attempts - in rushes per game while still winning a ton. 618 rushes, while the Broncos were 2nd with 534. Yes, the Steelers did a terrific job with Roethlisberger. But the reason they were able to do so is that the rest of the team was absolutely sensational.

Broken legs for McCarron and Peterman and Tonya Harding acting twitchy? Seriously, shouldn't be any expectations, especially if Allen is starting early. About the only expectations that would be reasonable would be that he would play like a rookie. Wins are a team thing. And it's very very early days. Rather than expectations, hopes would be far more reasonable. I'd hope for slow steadyish improvement.

It's reasonable to ask a question in a situation when you can ask a reasonable question. Plenty on here are asking whether Allen will be good. No reasonable answer possible yet. But people are asking, and for good reason. OP isn't expecting a final answer on whether they messed up. He's raising a reasonable question. People here tend to ask plenty of positive questions and speculate positively all the time. No problem. No angry responses. But if it's a negative question suddenly everybody's furious. It's like the fury at the press when there's a negative article about the Bills and the crickets about them when the article is positive. Same thing with anonymous sources. If they're positive they're believed. If they're negative, Bills fans suddenly refuse to deal with anonymous sources. **** I do of course agree that it's too early for any surety whatsoever on any of this. It's like those people who call bust after three games. But when it's out there, why not talk about it. If it had been positive, nobody would have raised an eyebrow.

I agree with most of your post, but politely disagree about that Chargers game. Yeah, the offense is in for a massive amount of the blame. But the defense didn't look good at all either. San Diego scored 54 points, but two of those TDs were a TD return of a Peterman INT and a TD return of a Tyrod fumble. The defense can’t be held responsible for those in any way. That leaves 40 points. Here are what the Chargers drives looked like: 1st – starts at Bills 31, held to an FG. Three plays, three yards. That’s a defensive success. 2nd 9:02 in the 1st Q – starts at Chargers 25. 45 yard drive and FG. 3rd 1:09 in the 1st Q – starts at Buf 45. TD. Terrific field position but they allowed a TD 4th 12:43 in the 2nd Q – starts at Buf 15. TD. The offense gets the lions share of the blame, but the defense didn’t hold them to a FG. 5th 9:09 in the 2nd – starts at Chargers 24. 66 yard drive and a field goal. You like that they didn’t allow the TD, but that’s a long drive. 6th 3:46 in the 2nd Q – starts at Chargers 43. 57 yard TD drive. 7th 0:35 in the 2nd Q – starts at Chargers 46. 33 yard drive. Kicked a FG with two seconds left on a 2nd and 10 at the 21. 8th 15:00 in the 3rd Q – starts at Chargers 25. 65 yard drive. FG on 4th and 10 at the 10 yard line. 9th 7:34 in the 3rd Q – starts at Chargers 22. 6 play drive and their first punt 10th 13:51 in the 4th Q – starts at Chargers 42. 9 play 58 yard drive and TD. 11th 4:49 in the 4th Q – starts at Buf 47. Two runs and a pass 3-and-out. 12th 2:46 in the 4th Q – starts at Chargers 40. First down on the second play and then three kneel-downs to end the game. The first Chargers punt came on the 9th drive, at 7:34 in the 3rd. Yeah, I'm sure fatigue might have been a part of the problem and bad field position was a major factor. But the defense just didn't look good at all.

He's not jumping the gun anymore than any of the people telling us good things about Allen are jumping the gun. If he told us the comparison is over, then yeah, just stupid. Asking the question is reasonable. Same as it was reasonable to ask the question during the draft.

This. Rosen was always considered more first-day-ready. Myself, I like Arizona, so I hope both guys work out. But Allen is likely to need more time and more development. I desperately hope that Allen in years two and three and onwards becomes a terrific QB. As long as that happens, anything else will be gravy.

Heh heh. Nice one.

I didn't say or imply that he was 100% healed. I just pointed out the - wildly - obvious ... that if he hadn't been ready to play at this point, they wouldn't have bothered reactivating him. As for the rest of your post, it misses the point. It's a fact that he had some burst when he came back in 2016. He showed it. Examples include the Oakland game and the 154-yard Miami game, but those weren't the only examples. But since you keep ignoring my main point, again and again not responding to it, I'll make it a bit larger this time ... Regardless of Sammy's health ... Tyrod's deep ball throwing was a ton worse in 2016 and 2017 than it had been in 2015. It was visibly obvious. And the stats bore out what anyone could see anyway.

I'm not as hopeful as you are, but maybe you're right. It'd definitely be great if you are. Looked to me like our defense puzzled people for a while and got lucky but that the turnovers dropping around midseason was a sign that either our lucky streak was over or that teams had a better bead on what the defense was doing. Having said that, I do really like the defensive backfield. And last year's defense was better than they ranked, I thought. They had a three-game streak of awfulness that was so epic that it bent the averages for the rest of the year when they played decently.

Yeah, apparently so. Did he fire his agent by twitter before this? Did he claim football was physically killing him before this? He's clearly gone off the rails the past few months, maybe since the racist taunts in the playoff game from a guy who appears not to be a racist. There may have been some other times he did so that we don't know about ... but this one has been so very public it seems unlikely that if it had happened before we wouldn't have gotten a whiff of it. So yeah, likely he's been good for three years. Having problems now, though.

Asses ask people if they're from the government when they pick up a phone after the ass threw a dumbbell at him? It's more than just being an ass, though that may be true as well. Did you see the video of the guy he had the confrontation with? He was really convincing. Richie's got issues. He appears to have had some problems back as far as his tweets this year and firing his agent by twitter.

Poor guy. Sounds like he is experiencing some kind of breakdown. Hope he gets some help. He couldn't have functioned with that kind of problem in a work environment, but plenty of problems go up and down. I wish him the best.

I agree they look like they have a good foundation. I don't expect real greatness this year, but they look like they have the beginnings of a pretty tough group, though the pass rush looks questionable. They'll have to manufacture one somehow. I'm less hopeful than most here about Murphy's likely sack totals. Hopefully I'm too pessimistic here. 20 INTs? This year? Last year the top three were the Ravens (22), the Jags (21) and the Saints (20). And while I like our defensive backfield a lot, I don't see us a top three D at INTs. Teams with that kind of production generally pressure the QB well or get teams behind and playing catchup. I don't see this as being that kind of a team this year. And 12 to 15 recoveries would either mean we were one of the top few teams at causing fumbles (which we did last year) or been lucky at recovering a higher than normal number of those fumbles. Possible. I'd hope we're just above average. Guess we'll see.