Just in Atlanta

The only thing I remember about Anderson is that he beat us in 2009 with two completions and a pick.

Peter Pan. Peterman. Kinda fits.

Well, we're in this together. Looks like Peter-man is actually starting next week.

At this point, I'd be shocked if management kept Peterman on the roster past Sunday. They have to let this guy go. He's become toxic, and a national punchline, for his insane 13.3 INTs to passes. He throws interceptions in his sleep. Hate to see anyone's career disappear in flames, but there's no way this team can ever trot Peterman on the field again from a PR perspective. If Allen isn't ready to go, could you imagine the collective WTF we'd all give if Peterman lines up behind center against Indi? It also makes no sense to keep him, strategically. You keep three types of quarterbacks on your roster IMO: Future/current franchise players, like Kelly and Allen. Stopgaps, like Bledsoe, Flutie, Taylor and Fitzpatrick--guys good enough to win more games than lose, with the right offense, but who will never bring you far into the playoffs. Oldish veterans like Derek Anderson and Kyle Orton who lack franchise talent but truly know the game. Peterman fits nowhere in this model. He's not the future, he can't win games now, and he actually loses games that were his to win.

Giving the guy some credit. He did actually throw a touchdown. We're talking grocery store brand prosciutto, not the good stuff, though.

I think we could get a 4th or 5th round pick half pound of prosciutto for Peterman.

We all need to look at the tape before we make rash opinions.

400 return yards on interceptions. Boom.

Normally, I'd be with you. But given the guy's track record--he literally throws a pick every 11 throws--11! (one in 11, think about that ridiculous stat for a second)--he's not cut out for this game. To answer the OPs question, I have no idea. But I would say a majority of this fan board at the end of preseason--you know who you are--was in favor of starting him over Allen and McCarron, the majority of which is now decrying McD's decision making. (For the record, I don't blame anyone for thinking Clipboardman was the better choice, it's just astonishing that we didn't bring in or keep a veteran presence until now).

I get the logic. But the fact that so many fans are seemingly WANTING to get rid of our No. 1 offensive talent for future picks IS kinda crazy. I'd be on board for an exchange of a legit WR and an above average offensive lineman. McCoy is still one of the greats in this game. This team will be unwatchable without him or some other talent. Trading him away for only unsure draft picks is a huge gamble. Keeping him is not.

This is GREAT news. According to your math, that's once every 3.5 games and 28.6 percent blow outs. Since we've been blown out three times out of four already this season, we only have 1.6 more blowouts left this season. If you round down, it's only ONE more blowout left! Conversely, I count that we've blown out opponents five times in 21 games. That's a 23.8 percent blowout rate and once every 4.2 games . Since we've only blown out one opponent this season, we're due for 2.8 more. Rounding up, that's THREE opponents we're set to blow out. That's a 3 to 1 positive to negative blowout ratio left for the season. If that ratio is indicative of wins/loses, I calculate we'll finish the year with 9.3 more wins and a 10-6 record. I'm buying that Allen jersey after all.

In all fairness, the Peterman question is more than relevant. It's about a 50 percent probability he starts again this year if Allen gets hurt.

Jeff Tuel got a bad rap. He really wan't all that bad. I'd rank him up with Thad Lewis. I'd go with with Nathan Peterman Then... Billy Joe Hobert At least Peterman studied the playbook. Kelly Holcomb, TJ Yates and Brian Bohm were all pretty bad, too, no?

We don't suck again!

Fun fact: No shutout in Minnesota since 1962.

Do we have to set up a Go Fund Me account for BuffaloRush?

That o lineman looked like he was trying to play paddy cake with Hughes instead of blocking him.

The balls are literally bouncing our way. What is this magic? Nice job Milano!

What a rush decision! McD needs to look at more "tape." You know, footage. Maybe Peterman isn't all that bad and our eyes deceived us with the two interceptions (to add to the other five), no first downs and no TDs.

McD clearly didn't clap enough today. I blame it on that.

Even the Bills' radio spots are bad. Micah Hyde's voiceover on depression made me depressed.

1. This chick needs a new lawyer. $15k for an STD from one of the top paid linemen in the NFL? And why on Earth would you even admit the consensual/non consensual sex part if you were only suing and not pursuing criminal charges? (Because if I were a woman, and raped, there's nothing more I'd want to do than ... have consensual sex with my attacker afterward?) 2. Dareus appears to have very little passion for the game, obviously has no self control and has the intelligence of an eggplant. What a wise move by Beane getting rid of him. I only hope the Shady story is bogus, which it appears to be. All of these guys need to choose their sexual conquests a little better. Jesus. 3. Seriously dislike the journalistic standard of not publicizing "victims' " names of sexual abuse in lawsuits while dragging the accused's name through the mud. I know she filed as Jane Doe in the suit, but journalists have been doing this for decades with other stories. When I was a reporter, I thought it was wrong, and it's wrong today. If you run a story on a suit or criminal case, you should publish both names, public figure or not, sexual crime or not. It's 2017, and by not publishing a name you're actually stigmatizing it. From a legal standpoint, you shouldn't be able to file anonymously IMO. Serious question: Can you prove a particular person gave you an STD? (I presume he knew; otherwise it wouldn't be grounds for a suit I imagine, but how can she prove Dareus gave it to her, and not, say, Mike Vick, aka Ron Mexico?).

MADly entertained by this thread.

In high school, Incognito was voted "Most Likely to be Held Involuntarily, Twice, Under the Baker Act." Amazing prediction.

That's nothing in today's world of "journalism." If this article generates a lot of interest, there will be articles about the articles and articles about readers' perception of the articles. It is weak. Just provide a link to the damn article already, do your own interviews, come up with your own story ideas, and do the job that journalists used to paid for.