transplantbillsfan

Interesting.

Very nice. Love the post. Love the optimism. I think we win several more games and go somewhere between 6-10 and 8-8. I need to see us beat the Patriots at Foxborough in order to believe it. But I'm excited to watch the last 6 games purely from the perspective of watching Allen (hopefully) develop

Not tanking, clearly. But Ws are also not our #1 priority. Developing our young talent is our #1 priority. But not tanking.

And so with the Peterman release, Buffalo now only has the one QB remaining on the roster who obviously should have been named starter, at latest, early in Training Camp. Way to go, McDermott

You forgot the "if healthy" part, which is pretty critical.

Let the conjecture continue. Next Monday when they practice is when we get the first legitimate clue as to whether Allen or Barkley starts against the Jags. I don't know why everyone doesn't take every single thing McDermott says with a grain of salt. Remember last year after the Saints game when McDermott said "Tyrod's our starter," only to stupidly bench him for the same guy that McDermott today said he was "still confident in" hours before cutting him? Yeah, I like McDermott. But I believe very little of what he says.

Misleading title. Allen hasn't been named the starter yet.

I don't think today's comments by McDermott were remotely unexpected, and I also don't think they mean Allen will start. Until they start practicing for the Jags game and Allen is taking all the 1st team reps and is no longer listed as "limited," McDermott's out remains Allen's injury. I would like to see Allen starting for the last 6 weeks. But what's great now is that I'm not utterly disgusted by the alternative option. The UCL is a tricky injury. It's not common for QBs. And when he got injured and got his 2nd opinion on it, the Doctor didn't definitively say Allen wouldn't need what ultimately amounts to Tommy John's surgery. I think if we see Allen against the Jags, it's because he's 100% healthy and doesn't risk making his UCL injury worse. I thought for sure Allen would start yesterday and was shocked when Barkley was named the starter instead and Allen was deactivated. That says Allen's obviously not 100%... and maybe not that close to 100% given the appearance of naming a guy who just signed with your team 10 days before as your starting QB. Luckily that worked out. I don't know why people put any credence in anything McDermott says. He's not a straight shooter about a lot of things. Actions speak louder than words, and the real answer comes when we start practicing for the Jags. Anyone know when that is?

Amen. Thank you. And never forget!

Shut up. We might start Barkley and it might be the right move, but it's not obvious. You sound like Buffbandit reincarnated.

Look, 2 months ago McDermott and Beane seemed to be going into the season believing (stupidly) that Allen would benefit from being the backup QB and learning on the bench while another QB led the team. Their foolishness stemmed from thinking Nate Peterman could be that other QB.  Then they had to insert Allen. They were absolutely forced to. Then Allen got hurt and after a quick reminder of the ongoing Peterman mistake, Anderson became the starter.  And if Anderson were playing like Barkley did yesterday, it's like hitting the reset button on the start of the season and Anderson probably would have held the reins until he started losing and sucking. He sucked too and we lost a string of games.  Then Matt Barkley comes in and has the best QB performance this football team has seen since Taylor against Miami on Christmas Eve in 2016. And our offense is utterly dominant against a decent defense. I saw a graphic flash that we had the 3rd best offensive output for a half in team history. That's amazing. This team is 3-7. We suck. We aren't making the playoffs, yet we are mathematically still in it. You can't make a move for the sake of development. You MUST make a move according to what helps your team win. And McDermott will make his next decision according to that, and that alone (along with the health of Allen's elbow) because it's obvious that's what he cares about. And he could go either way, but the simple truth is that Barkley-until-he loses is the easier choice.  Personally, I think benching Barkley after that game would take guts, and I don't know if McDermott has the guts to do it.  After all, he didn't have the guts to name Allen the starter over the Summer when it was obviously the right move.

Come on guys, the reason this isn't a no-brainer is obvious. 2 months ago McDermott and Beane seemed to be going into the season believing (stupidly) that Allen would benefit from being the backup QB and learning on the bench while another QB led the team. Their foolishness stemmed from thinking Nate Peterman could be that other QB. Then they had to insert Allen. They were absolutely forced to. Then Allen got hurt and after a quick reminder of the ongoing Peterman mistake, Anderson became the starter. And if Anderson were playing like Barkley did yesterday, it's like hitting the reset button on the start of the season. He sucked too and we lost a string of games. Then Matt Barkley comes in and has the best QB performance this football team has seen since Taylor against Miami on Christmas Eve in 2016. And our offense is utterly dominant against a decent defense. I saw a graphic flash that we had the 3rd best offensive output for a half in team history. That's amazing. This team is 3-7. We suck. We aren't making the playoffs, yet we are mathematically still in it. You can't make a move for the sake of development. You MUST make a move according to what helps your team win. And McDermott will make his next decision according to that, and that alone (along with the health of Allen's elbow) because it's obvious that's what he cares about. And he could go either way, but the simple truth is that Barkley-until-he loses is the easier choice. Personally, I think benching Barkley after that game would take guts, and I don't know if McDermott has the guts to do it. After all, he didn't have the guts to name Allen the starter over the Summer when it was obviously the right move.

Saw him on First Take this morning. Pretty hilarious how pissed he is. Also pretty much par for the course that Buffalo gets no credit.

Super close for me and I'm fine either way, but I think it's 51% chance Barkley starts over 49% Allen. Hard to justify benching Barkley after that game to the team and you can use the excuse of getting Allen fully healthy for one more game. And truthfully, maybe the UCL injury could use the rest.

If Barkley sucked today, I would have put Allen starting after the bye at 99%. Now it's 49% Allen vs 51% Barkley. Sorry, but I think Barkley could very easily be the hot hand McBeane so desired at the beginning of the year to let Allen ride the pine and learn while another QB helps the team win some games. And honestly, McDermott would have more to justify to his hard working players if he benches the guy who just had the best QB performance this team may have had in the last 2 years for Allen. Allen's the future, obviously. But I think maybe you ride the hot hand until you have 8 losses on the season.

You're exaggerating. You could easily still sell starting Barkley. But the moment we lose 1 more game you can't anymore. So it's a question of where McBeane thinks Allen's development is served best: on the field or on the bench... and the answer there isn't obvious.

Agreed.

This play is exactly why I'm perfectly fine if Benjamin is cut tomorrow.

I don't think it's an easy decision, but I can honestly say I'll be excited and perfectly fine with either of the 2 decisions McDermott has in front of him. Remember, it's obvious the Bills wanted Allen to sit this year. What they bungled was who they brought in at QB to start while Allen sat on the bench. What I think happens is Barkley starts until we lose and Allen's injury is used as the excuse. But I'm happy either way.

I actually don't know. This will be an interesting decision for McDermott. The only thing that absolutely must happen is Peterman must be cut.

You mean they haven't already released him?

You do? What's your previous username? And I'm sorry, but nothing I said about Peterman's preseason was wrong. Be enamored with preseason stats all you want. For QBs, those don't matter much--see 2015 And Jeff Tuel in 2013. What matters is what TYPES of throws they're making, whether they're going through progressions, pocket presence in the face of pressure, etc. Peterman was, at best, an Incomplete on all those important things in the preseason.

Not at all. He threw at MINIMUM one pass that should have been picked off in every one of those games. They were all those out patterns he's too weak-armed to throw. It happened. And all his great stats were the result of incredibly vanilla offense with easy passes vs incredibly vanilla defense. He never should have started this year and he wouldn't have if we had a coach who wasn't enamored by stats.

Aww puddin, I'm so flattered. FTR... it was start Allen if he's healthy enough and doesn't risk making his injury worse. If not, anybody but Peterman. Got my wish