transplantbillsfan

Wait... so you're an Allen fan, not a Bills fan? So basically, you believe that McDermott and Beane simultaneously and purposefully sabotaged the beginning of our season on purpose in order to get Allen in without resistance? Okay, now I guess if Allen doesn't play I will have to pay attention to whether McDermott uses the word "setback" or alludes to one.

I get it just fine. You're saying Allen is definitely starting next Sunday. I'm saying that's still in doubt. Actions will speak louder than words, so let's see what happens in the upcoming week.

You're seriously giving them the benefit of the doubt here. I think McDermott and Beane just grossly screwed up the QB situation outside of Allen.

See my comments above. Clearly McDermott has no respect for the intelligence of the media or fans. What does belithey mean? Regardless, Allen hasn't exactly lit the world on fire so far, though he has certainly flashed and demonstrated poise and composure. I could really see this going either way. Who are you trying to convince?

They didn't want Allen to start this year. They wanted him to ride the pine and learn from the bench. Do you even dispute that? What McDermott and Beane screwed up on was their massive overestimation of Peterman and McCarron. Barkley could be viewed as an opportunity to hit the reset on Allen learning from the bench for a few more weeks. You're exactly right about the investment in Allen. That's why I won't be surprised with either of the 2 decisions McDermott might make.

What did McDermott say immediately after the Saints game last year? What happened the very next day? What did McDermott say about his confidence in Peterman on Monday? What happened hours later? I like McDermott. I don't trust what he says at all, and I don't know why you would. Actions speak louder than words, especially with this Head Coach.

I'll believe it when I see Allen start practicing fully on Monday. That report is from before Barkley's performance, so it's only relevant insofar as to say that Allen is pretty much healthy, or very close to it. But if Allen is truly 100% ready to go and McDermott has no doubts that Allen would be starting a week from tomorrow, on Monday he would have just said "We thank Matt for filling in, Josh will be our starter after they bye week." I want to see if Allen is still "limited" on Monday. If he is, him starting is very much in doubt.

I generally agree with you while understanding and being fine with the route of Allen starting. I still think Barkley is pretty likely to start against the Jags, anyway. Remember that McDermott said "if healthy." That elbow injury is a tricky and unique injury for a QB and I could absolutely see us erring on the side of caution... or even using the injury as an excuse for 1 more game for all the reasons you stated. But then what happens if Barkley lights it up 1 more week? He gets another week? And then another? And then another? And what happens if he has 3 really good games after the bye and 1 absolute stinker? Do we stick with him again? If so, what if he has another stinker? I like Barkley. I wanted to draft him out of college. But the simple fact is that we're too invested in Allen, so allowing Barkley to go out there and have a series of good to great games might be a bad idea for the simple reason that it's incredibly short-sighted--and it feels awkward for me to say that because I'm all about "best chance to win" and everything. We cut Peterman, so while perhaps Barkley is our best chance to win RIGHT NOW (and possibly not... gotta wonder the impact of the fact that the Jets preparation was entirely for Allen), trotting Allen onto the field won't give the appearance us us actively trying to lose the way it did with Peterman. And I think Allen's development happens best and quickest on the field, anyway. Stow Barkley away on the team as a long term backup ASAP. If Allen turns into a bust, give Barkley his shot then. Not now. There's almost no point in doing it now and it might even be detrimental to our efforts to retain him as a long term backup.

Nice recent example of a guy we were reportedly pursuing and couldn't get.

Wait... did you just say Taylor can't even be a proven backup?

Who knows? But we'd have more wins. We still have 6 games to go so maybe this is an interesting question to end the season. But it's very, very obvious that Beane and McDermott completely screwed the pooch on the QB position, and I'm sure if they could see the future and knew the offseason and beginning of this year would unfold the way it did, they would have kept Taylor. We have the 2nd most turnovers in the NFL. What did Taylor do well? This is a simple equation. Our passing game might not have been great, but we wouldn't have turned the ball over nearly as much as we have. And I can't find a statistic for "points off turnovers," but I'm sure we're right up there for that, too. I haven't even looked at anyone's posts in here, but I imagine people are saying things like, "are you crazy?!?! No, Taylor sucked! We'd still suck!" Those people, if they're saying anything resembling that, are naive. We might not be a playoff team with Taylor, but right now we'd sit at probably at least 1 or 2 more wins than we have, which would put us squarely in the playoff picture. And before anyone cites the Vikings game or Jets game saying Taylor never would have matched the offensive output we got in both of those games, notice the fact that our defense nearly pitched shut outs in both of those games. We still would have won both of those games with those performances with Taylor. Playoffs with Taylor? Maybe. At least we never would have seen the 13 combined turnovers from DA and Nathan Peterman that happened in the 5 total games the 2 of them played in, all of which were losses.

Yes, I realize most of those players listed are on D... it seems we've focused mostly on D in our drafts. Zay, Dawkins and Allen are the 3 offensive players we've drafted in the first 3 rounds over the last 2 years vs. White, Edmunds and Phillips this year. All of those players have showed promise, at least, up to this point. You can't talk about any of them looking like a bust right now. But what's been really impressive is the drafting of players in later rounds with guys like Milano, Taron Johnson, and Teller. That's 9 players who look like they will be starters for us for a good number of years. 9 players in 2 drafts is pretty impressive, along with the TBD guys like Ray Ray. Hitting a starter on better than 50% of your draft class over the span of 2 years is pretty impressive. But again, it all boils down to JA.

The only one I want lookin at me is you, sweetcheeks

McDermott and Beane have proven in 2 years they can draft and assess young talent pretty well. Dawkins, White, Milano, Edmonds, Johnson, Teller, Phillips... these are all guys who look like they might be steals where we drafted them. All we can do is cross our fingers that Allen pans out. If he can develop some over the offseason and McBeane utilize our CAP space (which is the most in the NFL) wisely this offseason and continue to draft well and probably bring back Kyle and Lorax for one more year... we will be contenders next season.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/2018/11/14/18095115/nathan-peterman-buffalo-bills-stats-long-live-the-peter-man Review: Nathan Peterman was the worst NFL quarterback we’ve seen, and for that we’ll miss him

Here's the playoff machine to show you how we get our miracle http://www.espn.com/nfl/playoffs/machine

Absolutely not!!! One friggin game and you do something stupid like bench him? No, once Allen is inserted, he will be allowed the rest of the season to play and won't be benched for any reason other than injury. However, I'm still not sure Allen even plays week 12 against the Jags. McDermott said Allen will start against Jacksonvill "if healthy." That "if healthy" part is key. Barkley could very well still start in a week and a half. And if he plays the way he did the last game, I could see Allen's injury and health continually being cited as the reason Barkley continues to start. But no, once Allen plays, he's the starter.

Win. Period. Draft position doesn't matter if we have our QB. Winning matters. Even if it doesn't mean a miracle playoff run--which is incredibly and highly doubtful--it will attract Free Agents in the offseason and show this team is on the brink. And we have lots of money to spend, so we could very easily be serious contenders next season.

I've never been so confident a 54 yard FG would be good as when he kicks one. Kinda crazy.

I disagree with you. Money isn't necessarily the most important thing once you've reached a certain threshold of how much you make. Where you live, who you work with and work conditions are hugely important. I'm a public school teacher in the state of Hawai'i. When you factor in cost of living, we are some of the lowest paid teachers in the country. But I love my life where I live, where I work, and who I work with. If a school in North Dakota offered me 10 times more than what I currently make, I wouldn't accept. I think NFL players put a lot of thought into what teams they're going to play for, and when they end up on teams or in places that surprise people, you discover it's because they were offered SIGNIFICANTLY more by that unexpected team.

Starting Allen doesn't mean we're trying to lose and it doesn't mean we will. We're 2-2 in games Allen's started and finished. It just means we want to keep developing him and maybe show those FAs we have a solid young guy at QB.

It does, but the next 6 Sundays (we play) are very much intertwined with that long term vision. I wanted to mention both Phillips because I think #97 has been a great acquisition... I just wonder if he sticks. The worse your team, the more money you need to throw at Free Agents. Sure, they'll still come, but the better your team looks, the better your negotiating stance financially.

It should be pretty clear winning is at least priority 1B. Priority 1A is clearly development of young players. But development of young players isn't mutually exclusive from winning. I proposed starting Peterman weeks ago to get a higher draft pick. It's pretty clear McBeane don't care how high their draft pick is, they care about Ws, even if they're fumbling their way through the season trying to get them. But in this process, they're finding a core group of players--mostly on defense--who will make up the nucleus of this team for years to come: Hughes (I think he's resigned) Lawson (I think he's resigned) Harrison Phillips Star Edmunds Milano Tre Hyde Poyer Zay Jones Dawkins Wyatt Teller Josh Allen (we hope) Now we go into an offseason with massive amounts of money to spend in Free Agency for the next couple of years. The problem is that you need to attract Free Agents with the team situation along with the finances. If Peterman started the entire year and we ended up with the #1 draft pick, that's one excellent non-QB we get, or maybe a couple after trading down. But Beane has proven to be pretty capable at finding gems later in the draft, so is the difference that great? But if we started Peterman and just absolutely sucked the rest of the year without showing any promise, who would we draw in at Free Agency? Obviously development is priority #1A, otherwise I believe Barkley would start against the Jags (and he still might). But with the benching and cutting of Peterman (FINALLY!!!), I think there's a clear signal that Beane and McDermott never wanted to tank and aren't trying to right now, they just SERIOUSLY screwed up the QB position. But in the end, I think our 6-10 to 8-8 record we'll end the season with will be enough to draw in some of the prized Free Agents this offseason at positions of need that we'll be looking for. And I suspect Kyle and Lorax are convinced to come back for one more run at something... But this time, a real run at something.

Here's a good compilation of him. Good stuff. Don't know why it took so long.