oldmanfan

Which is exactly what I just said. Other than not having Anderson or someone else like him come in when they traded McCarron, what else exactly could have been done differently? I like everyone else assumed McCarron would be the starter, and Allen would sit behind him and lean until they decided to put him in. well, unfortunately McCarron did not pan out as expected; he did not play well in pre-season and Peterman did. So what exactly was the coaching staff supposed to do, just ignore what went on during practices and in pre-season games? Just assume that McCarron would magically straighten out when the regular season started? So Peterman got the call and the biggest issue we've had with this entire QB thing is that Peterman for whatever reason throws up on himself when the real games start. So then Allen gets the call, just like every other rookie drafted this past year other than Jackson has done. And Allen as expected had ups and downs. So, again, yes they should have brought in a vet like Anderson maybe when they brought McCarron in (although reports are they tried to get Anderson in and he didn't want to sign then). But ask yourself this: would it have really changed anything? Would a guy like Anderson (or let's throw out other names: Sanchez, Barkley) really, honestly have changed the course of what went on this season? Would our record be that much better with any journeyman QB in there? Would it have forestalled getting Allen in there? Highly doubtful. The offense is in a bad way right now, not because we should have signed journeyman X over journeyman Y in March. It's because we have had our rookie QB hurt, and we've had to go with backups. Even with Allen our offense was going to be problematic because that's what happens with rookie QBs. And when you now have to go out and find a fourth QB to back up your 3rd QB because of injuries it gets really bad. So really, looking at all this you can say they should have signed a guy when they traded McCarron. Fine. You can say Peterman never should have started if you want to ignore his excellent pre-season. Fine too. But it doesn't make those arguments correct, and it doesn't mean our season miraculously improve.

How? Other than not bringing Anderson in earlier when they traded McCarron, how? They are down two guys that got hurt. So they have to bring a fourth guy in.

He's getting there.

When he gets cleared to play he'll play. No one is saying he needs surgery, just that they don't want to rush him back till he's 100%. And I expect a better backup situation here next year.

They don't have many choices right now. And they drafted the guy with the biggest arm in recent memory

Seems reasonable. And for those saying they need to replace Allen give it a rest. That's not happening and you know it.

I get tired of repeating this but I have said many times they should have brought Anderson or a similar guy in when they traded McCarron. And I have also said with Peterman that the mystifying thing is that he looks so good in preseason and practice but then throws up on himself. That said, when teams have two QBs go down with injuries they then have little if any chance. Then you grab what you can. And true to form people tonight are complaining about Barkley as if Jimbo is out there waiting.

How? Are you concerned they'll want to keep Barkley next year? Peterman? Maybe you need to define your concept of the future.

So saying signing him would be scary for our future means it has nothing to do with our future. OK.

scary for our future that this is their decision.  Your exact words.

Would you stop? You honestly think Barkley has anything to do with the future of this team? Two QBs are hurt. They have to get a fourth and none of the available guys are going to be much good or they wouldn't be available.

I have stated my position several times now. You have as well. Would you like to do it again?

I know you think you're Nostradamus, but let me say it more clearly: We'll see. And of course I would love to see the Bills in that position. I'm not saying the Rams are wrong. They're loading up to take their shot. Good for them. But their window may be narrow. They are building by signing FAs and trading away draft picks. At some point that will fail when you don't have the picks to build with. But they may win a title or two in the interim. My guess is they'll get to the playoffs, but get taken down before the big game.

As I said, we'll see. Let's see when guys like Woods and Krupp and Talib and Peters and Su start demanding big bucks when their deals come up

When Goff has to get paid and they have Donald's big deal and such we'll see. They have gone all in. Good for them. We'll see how it works.

Rams have this year and maybe next year. Then they'll have to dump a bunch of guys. We'll see if it works.

You don't have to keep them. But you're not the owner. Don't like it work on your yard Sunday afternoons.

How long have you watched Buffalo football?

In the history of the NFL how many teams wind up doing well when through injuries they get down to their third QB? I can't think of any. Granted they should have had Anderson or a similar guy here when they traded McCarron but when injuries make you play three guys it just doesn't work out well. I will say this reminds me more and more of Ed Rutkowski. If Thomas has to step in Sunday it would be a return to '68.

The bandage was the cap space. Again like it or not they felt they had guys with big salaries and cap numbers that weren't performing. So they elected to get rid of that quickly do they would have space and picks to get the guys they think will win.

Well, since neither you nor I are Nostradamus I don't think we can answer those questions. They just brought Pryor in. They tried Foster for speed, and now Phillips. In the Houston and Tennessee games Allen was going downfield more. If they don't give him weapons you'll have a point then. Plus, after watching the Bills play in Buffalo for 58 years now, I can tell you without question that you have to be able to run the ball in Buffalo in December.

And that is why they drafted Allen. And why Beane said before they drafted Allen that you have to have a QB to win

Do you honestly think he talks the same way with his team as he does at press conferences?

They nstink right now. No one is denying that. No one is denying that they need to make sure they use their cap space and draft picks wisely or they will be in jeopardy of losing their jobs. But here you are, trying to rewrite history to have your little hissy fit. And it's tiring. Pretty solid ideas.

Let's talk about Glenn. He missed almost all of last year. And they traded him to move up and get their QB. And I defy you to find anyone around here who, since Kelly , has not at least once complained about the Bills not ever taking a shot at a QB in the draft. That they'll never go anywhere without a QB. Let's talk Dareus. Who pulled a Haynesworth and decided to become a fat tub of goo after he got paid. Let's talk Woods. Actually you have it backwards; everyone thought at the time that the contract he got offered was way more than a #2 WR contract. Plus all the rumors were that he wanted to go back west. Plus it was Whaley that could have resigned him before he left in free agency, not McD or Beane. Let's talk Goodwin. It matters not whether he's better than Ray Ray or Foster right now, it matters what he was then. And then he was a guy that could not stay on the filed, whom no one wanted to keep around. Let's talk Brown. Brown who made a lot of tackles 5 yards downfield, Brown who again many fans had seen enough of when he was here. You are revising history to fit your little narrative. You are the typical guy around here. Complain when they don't do everything to get a QB, complain when they do that they should have focused on getting other guys instead of a QB.