msw2112

Perhaps the better question is this: would this be a playoff team with Wood, Incognito and Cordy Glenn? We have a depleted offensive line and no running game, both of which are much worse than the last 3 years. If Taylor was our starting QB, we may have one more win and many fewer turnovers, but we would not be a playoff team. I am a Taylor fan and think he's a quality person and a good NFL player, but he's not a good passing QB. The Bills made the correct decision to move on and take a step back to try to improve the team for the long term. As to Matt Barkley, he played a great game vs. the Jests last week and I take my hat off to him. As I read in another post this week, EJ Manuel also once had a great game against the Jests. Fitzy had a lot of great games for us and for other teams. That doesn't make any of those guys the franchise QB that the Bills and all NFL teams seek. Allen may or may not turn out to be a franchise QB, but the only way to find out is to watch him play the rest of this year and all of next year.

I'm a fairly liberal thinker and I support the players who want to kneel, think Kaepernick is getting a raw deal, etc. I think that the article quoted in the original post is ridiculous. McDermott started Peterman because Taylor was HORRIBLE for three straight games before he got benched. During that stint, Peterman came in during garbage time against the Saints and moved the team and scored some points. McDermott took a chance that maybe he had something with Peterman that would spark the offense. It didn't work out and the rest of Peterman's career in Buffalo didn't go well, but the benching of Taylor in the first place had NOTHING to do with race and it is clear that the author of that article did not watch the THREE Bills games prior to Peterman's first start. The author of that article is uninformed and the article is offensive to me. And people now don't hate on or mock Peterman because he is white. It is because he had historically bad statistics.

Arm strength is never a negative quality. Perhaps they drafted Allen because he has mobility, leadership qualities, a good work ethic AND arm strength. I agree that drafting a guy who ONLY has arm strength is not a good idea. That said, I'm not sure whether the question from the initial post was "Why did we draft a guy with great arm strength?" or "Why do we attempt so many long throws down the field?"

I worked on a project a few years ago with a sociologist who specialized in learning. His theory was that everyone learns differently. Some people learn by reading about how something is done. Others learn by watching someone else do it. Still others learn by actually doing it. Successful leaders and managers have the ability to understand the people they have working for them and how they learn best, and then apply the best approach. I have no idea how Josh Allen learns best, but I hope that McDermott is that kind of successful leader who can identify what works best for Allen and applies it.

I was as happy (and surprised) as anyone with Barkley's play on Sunday. That doesn't mean he'll ever play that well again and it doesn't mean the are we set at the backup position for years, as many are saying. The guy played one good game, after being overlooked by all 32 NFL teams for a couple of years. He was pretty lousy in his game action prior to that. I agree that due to his age and arguably his pedigree, he may be a better player than Anderson, but that doesn't mean he has a better temperament or better ability to mentor Allen. Anderson has been in the league a lot longer and has started a lot more games than Barkley, and also has direct mentoring experience of the kind Buffalo is looking for. I don't know if the mentoring thing is effective or not, but Allen has been complimentary of Anderson's presence and our front office and coaching staff apparently think that there is value in it now. They obviously didn't think so at the beginning of the season....

We have (at least we hope we have) our franchise QB. I don't know that a few spots of draft position will make as much difference THIS YEAR as in some other years. I'd rather see they try to win while developing Allen and some other young players. It will also make Sundays more entertaining THIS YEAR. If we had a horrible defense and no chance to be competitive in any games, I might prefer to to focus on draft position, but we have an excellent D, an excellent placekicker and a few pieces on offense, so why not build a foundation for the future with a few more wins? Think about the potential for this draft class if Allen pans out: Allen, Edmonds, Phillips, Taron Johnson and Wyatt Teller. That's an amazing draft. Combine that with White, Zay, Dawkins and Milano from last year. Impressive.

Sometimes a long-term business relationship runs its course and everyone needs a fresh start. Harbaugh is a great coach with a long track record of success and will have no problem landing the head coaching job of his choice. I'd love to see him in Buffalo, but the timing isn't right. I think we need to give the current regime time to finish what they started. Despite the bungled QB situation this season, I still think they have a plan and are sticking to it and will come out pretty well on the other end.

Peterman should start. Allen should use this week and the bye week to prep for coming back 100% healthy. Barkley was signed because they only had 1 healthy QB going into the last game, and if Anderson hasn't cleared concussion protocol and Allen isn't ready, they need to have a backup. I see zero value in Barkley playing. He was and is a terrible NFL QB, which has borne out over many years and several teams. Peterman is a young, developmental guy who has shown some bright spots and a whole lot of horrible (and yes, at epic levels)/ I know that many think that Peterman is the worst QB in history, and some statistics could justify that argument. Keep in mind that top 10 draft pick Sam Darnold threw 4 picks last week and top 10 draft pick Josh Rosen threw 3 picks, including 2 pick-6s against the Broncos a few weeks ago. This is what young, inexperienced QBs do, particularly against good defenses, and particularly when the team they are on has no WRs, no OL and very little running game. With time, experience and a better supporting cast, some of them get better. Peterman could very well be a viable future #2 or #3 QB for this team. Let him play and see if that's the case. I'm not disillusioned and don't think he will be a starter or Pro Bowler. I don't even think he's a lock to become a viable backup - but he might. We're 2-7 and can always cut him or put him on the Practice Squad later if he continues to struggle. There is no future potential for Barkley on this team, so there is no sense in playing him.

I have been to many NFL stadiums and although I like the outdoor elements, I think that a retractable roof dome is the most practical for Buffalo. I have attended many games at the Arizona stadium and it is a good model. Large and modern with plenty of amenities, but not crazy over the top. I have also seen the Indy stadium (only from the outside and on TV, never been to a game there) and it also seems to be the type of stadium that would work for Buffalo. I have been to a game in the new Dallas stadium and think it is way too big and way too over the top - and would be way too expensive for Buffalo. I actually prefer the AZ stadium to the Dallas one. Minnesota looks great on TV (have not been there), but I don't know if it is retractable and I don't know if the funding will be there for something on that scale in Buffalo.

I was also looking forwards to an Allen-Darnold matchup. The two of them are actually good friends and I'm sure they are competitive with each other. I could tolerate Peterman-Darnold, as at least you are getting two young QB's who, at least as of last week, were equally turnover prone. In other words, a competitive matchup....McCown, at this stage, is much better than Darnold, so I suspect this change increases the Jests chances of victory. It makes the game vastly less interesting.

A head coach should be just that - a head coach - and not a coordinator on either side of the ball. Some examples: Belichick was a DC for many years. His greatest success with the Pats has been centered around their offense and scoring a ton of points. Going a back a few years, Brian Billick came to the Ravens with his best success as an OC and he was considered an offensive genius. He had great success and won a Super Bowl in Baltimore with great defense and a poor Trent Dilfer-led offense. Mike Tomlin has been pretty successful with the Steelers, mostly based on offense, but was previously a defensive coach. The point is that a good HC is a good HC, regardless of the side of the ball they came from.

I agree with this post! And I can keep mine short (for a change), because it's all here.

I predicted between 4 and 6 wins. The QB, WR and O-Line situations were not mysteries to anyone. I think my prediction will be accurate, but probably at the lower end of the scale. Despite last year's record, it was pretty obvious that they were taking some steps back with an eye towards the future. If Allen pans out, they'll be fine. If he doesn't, we'll see the coaching and GM carousel spin around again.

He is going through the motions to collect this year's paycheck, but is definitely playing to not get hurt so that he will be healthy going into free agency. He got banged up pretty badly making a catch over the middle against the Chargers last year. At that point, the team was in the playoff hunt. He's not going to let that happen again on a team that is going absolutely nowhere. As a fan of the team, I don't like it, but I understand it as a "business decision." You can argue that playing poorly in a contract year will result in a lesser deal next year, but getting a serious injury would cost him a lot more.

I haven't watched as much NFL this year as I would like, but I have seen bits and pieces of all 5 of the 1st round rookies this year. I have seen missed reads, inaccurate throws, interceptions and pick 6's (not as much from Jackson, because most of his snaps are running plays or gadget plays and not really "regular" QB snaps). Just about what you would expect from rookie QB's on poor teams. I have also seen some positive plays made by each of them. Just about what you'd expect from NFL players with first round talent. It's just too soon to tell who will ultimately succeed and who will ultimately bust. Jackson and Allen have played the least, so there's even less to go on for them. I think we'll have a better idea on all of these guys (except maybe for Jackson, if Flacco stays the starter in Baltimore) at the end of next season.

In my opinion, a "tank" is a rebuild in which the franchise intentionally makes moves that will insure maximum losses and thus result in the best draft position. This is what the Sabres did before they drafted Jack Eichel. I don't think the Bills are doing that. They are clearly rebuilding, but also trying to perform the best they can with what they have while they rebuild. The problem is that what they have, on offense, is not very good. They didn't plan on the retirements of Wood and Incognito, but when they happened, they didn't invest a lot in the position because they knew it was a rebuilding year and they didn't want to get saddled with bad contracts. They also didn't think that McCarron and Peterman (and Benjamin) would turn out to be as bad as they are. That may speak to poor personnel evaluation, but given that they are rebuilding, I don't think they wanted to invest a lot of money, as they goal was to clear cap space for the future. So in short, all tanks include a rebuild, but not all rebuilds include a tank. This is a rebuild without a tank. They are not trying to lose games to improve draft position, but they are making roster decisions (or a lack of them, as the case may be) with an eye towards future seasons, not this season.

He's a young QB with the potential to be a serviceable NFL backup. Likely not starter material. The coaching staff has put him into situations where it would be very difficult for him (or any young, inexperienced QB) to succeed and, predictably, he has not succeeded. The majority of his NFL snaps have come in road games against top defenses (Chargers last year, Jags last year, Ravens this year, Texans this year). In the one home game he started (Colts, last year, in the snow), he did some good things that helped us win the game. He's even completed a few good passes in his miserable road games (the one at the Chargers on which Benjamin got hurt and the TD against the Texans). I hope he bounces back and has a good game on Sunday. And if he doesn't and is ultimately released, I won't lose any sleep and I will wish him well.

It's a rebuild and the Bills are terrible, so I am not at all concerned about our fate Monday night. It is what it is. I do, however, have two comments about this thread: 1) Some of the posts are hilarious and are cracking me up 2) Who is going to be the first to mention Freddy Jackson? Forgive me if someone did and I missed it. I've hear he's available and in great shape. (So is TO).

I'm not saying that every move these guys have made is the perfect move and I agree that they have handled the QB situation poorly this year. But people are completely overreacting. This is a a bad football team that was bad last year and had some breaks and snuck into a winning record and a playoff berth. This year, it is even worse, as there is even less talent on the roster and the team knowingly moved on from a mediocre starting QB. Anyone who thought differently is delusional. They are intentionally getting rid of the dead weight, shedding bad contracts and building through the draft. They drafted some potentially good players last year (Tre White and Milano, for example) and this year (Allen, Edmonds, Phillips, Johnson) and have 10 draft picks next year. They are not "tanking" like the Sabres did, but they are trying to win with a totally depleted roster that was totally depleted by design. Nobody told us to expect any suffering, but that's the reality and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I have not been to Buffalo in a few years. I'm going to be in Buffalo next week and plan to pick up tickets to the game Monday night. I fully expect us to get blown out, because we are a bad football team and New England is a very good football team that was in the Super Bowl last year and has been in the Super Bowl picture for the last several years. It would be really preferable if there was not a riot. I do hope there is a lot of noise and the house is rocking, as it has been on Monday nights in the past (when we also had a bad football team). That would make for a fun evening, regardless of the outcome. The Giants are a bad football team. The Cardinals are a very bad football team. That doesn't make New York or Arizona a bad place or the people that live there bad people. Nobody in those markets is talking about a riot. The Bills are a bad football team, but Buffalo is a great town with great people. The team will improve in the coming years and it will still be a great town with great people. Please have some perspective.

1. I was born and raised in Buffalo and am a huge sports fan. My grandfather and father were/are also Bills fans. 2. The bonds created from being a Bills fan are second to none. It connects me to many family and friends who live all over the country, and it is often the perfect excuse to meet in various cities for road Bills games. If we are not traveling, we connect on Sundays via text message. I made numerous friends at the Bills bars in Chicago when I lived there and I have also gone to Bills bars in various cities while traveling and the camaraderie among everyone is amazing. No matter where in the country you go, you are always welcome. Most recently, I was at Octoberfest in Germany last week and wore a Bills hat to see what would happen. Sure enough, I got a shout out. From out of nowhere, I heard someone yell "Bills Mafia!" 3. I have several. I was at the "Greatest Comeback" game and decided to stay for the 2nd half. Enough said. There was also a home game against the Broncos in 1990 when the Bills were down 14-0 and scored 3 times in less than 2 minutes (blocked kick for TD, pick 6, etc.) - it is the loudest and craziest I have ever seen the stadium. https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2010/9/30/1703600/september-30-1990-bills-score-20-points-in-77-seconds I also have a lasting memory way back in the early 80s, when lots of home games were blacked out. My brother, friends and I would play touch football in the street and listen to the Van Miller broadcast on a portable radio. One such Sunday we beat the Pats on a hail mary pass from Joe Ferguson to Roland Hooks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Hooks . I have many others, but these are the top ones! I would be curious to know if anyone else on the board has memories of these last 2 games that I mentioned (the "Greatest Comeback" game goes without saying).

I agree with this previous post. A couple of years ago, we won our meaningless Week 16 battle and were rewarded by dropping a few slots in the draft. In the final weeks, if the team is out of the playoffs and trending down, it is better to lose and improve the team's draft status. Play some of the young guys, let them develop, and see if anyone emerges. At that point, you are playing for the future. Week 2 or 3 is WAY too early to be thinking about draft position. You want to see if you can either win enough to make the playoffs OR develop a positive culture for the future and develop young players (or ideally, do both). I loved the win yesterday and think it gives us something to build on. Losing to improve draft position can be discussed in December. I also agree with the earlier post that says that you can get great players even if you are not drafting in the top 10 (see White, Tre) and you can get lousy players while drafting in the top 10 (see Bills, Buffalo for most of the last 20 years), so where you finish is not as important as how well you draft. Of course, if you pick higher, you have more top players to choose from and should theoretically be in a better position to pick a better player. I don't think this team is going to make the playoffs this year, but I will be in Green Bay on Sunday pulling for a Bills win!

In college at BC, Milano was the "viper" in DC Don Brown's defense. The viper is hybrid linebacker/safety position that is the key to Brown's defense. He usually puts his best athlete in that role. I think that BC's defense was #1 in the country Milano's senior year. Brown left BC and went to Michigan, where Jabril Peppers (Heisman finalist, 1st round pick and starting safety for the Browns) became his next viper. I was really excited with the Bills drafted Milano and it is great to see him fulfilling his potential, as he did in college. Hopefully, he can maintain this level of play and have a successful career. For a 5th round pick, the returns are looking pretty good right now.

I was impressed by Mayfield, but Darnold was the savior 2 weeks ago, until other teams got regular season film on him and started game planning for him. Based on what I have seen so far, Mayfield is the most game ready, followed by Darnold, followed by Allen. As to physical abilities/raw talent, it would be Allen, followed by Darnold, followed by Mayfield. Lamar Jackson looks like a great swiss-army knife type of player, but needs a lot of work to be a viable NFL QB. He's incredible athletically. We haven't seen anything from Rosen yet, but as putrid as the Cardinals' offense is, perhaps his time is coming soon.

And the Pats cut Corey Coleman to make roster space for Gordon. Coleman now cut by 3 teams in a matter of a few weeks, and if I am not mistaken, 2 of those times he was cut to make roster space for Gordon.

From all of the scouting reports on Allen, we know that accuracy has been a problem for him in the past. It will get better with experience, coaching and hard work/practice, but will probably never be his greatest strength. He's also rookie playing in his first couple of games and he is trying to process a whole lot of information that he has not had to in the past, so I wouldn't make too many judgments on what we have seen in the last 2 weeks.