transplantbillsfan

I'll be honest, I'm more anxious than excited. I'd be excited if Allen were starting. Nothin but anxiety about Peterman starting.

They're idiots. Anyone want to bet me money we don't end up with the worst record in the league? I'll give you 5:1 odds.

Jesus. No. Just... no.

Really? How so. I think everyone had the guy they wanted, but it was because they thought that guy would be best for the TEAM. Has anyone wished injury or another 5 Interception half on Peterman? Huh? You think my life revolves around being right here? I was just having fun with this thread over the Summer trying to give the rest of us some extra dialogue and some extra things to watch for.

With the bold, you were correct. The rest of your post is your opinion. I don't think it's accurate, primarily because of the addition of Dabol.

I agree with your entire breakdown, though the one thing I actually disagree with is one con. Peterman can run. Problem is those cons seem almost insurmountable to me with this OL. And that route route is a very basic NFL route and the idea of him throwing it is terrifying. I think Dabol will find a way, though

I believe in McDermott and I believe he's changed this to a winning culture. And we have a better roster than last year. And we have a better OC than last year by the simple fact that you can't get worse than Dennison. 10-6 and a playoff win

About what exactly? When you said "Transplant might disagree, but Allen is an enormous project." If that were true, he'd be our 3rd string QB and McCarron never would have been traded. Or when you said "People might not want to hear it, but this is a guy who was a 2-3 year project" Despite the fact that this was pretty clearly an open competition Allen was very much in. And that Beane the other day said Allen has warranted an opportunity to start and an unprompted McDermott today said "Josh is on schedule." Well, Josh is one hit (or 5 Interceptions ) away from starting. Clearly not 2-3 years away in their eyes... but I guess you know better? Or is this when I responded to one of those posts and posted "Please stop pushing the narrative Allen is still a huge project who needs 2-3 years on the bench.  He doesn't. The only reason Allen should be on the bench at this point is because we don't have even an adequate Offensive Line by NFL standards.  That's it.  If the Bills had the OL of the Cowboys or Raiders, Allen would be the starter and would probably find a lot of success.  He wouldn't be the worst starting QB in the NFL, as you postulated a few posts ago saying the Bills automatically have the worst QB in the league already, no matter who starts." and you said every word of that post was wrong? You were dead right that Allen wouldn't start week 1. As I said in that post and others after that 3rd preseason game, I didn't think he should but just still thought he would. This is the smart decision right now. But Allen's not going to be on the bench learning for 2-3 years... might not be more than 2-3 games. Let's hope Sunday isn't a Chargers game repeat making it 2-3 quarters

Shady... is it just that you're in love with me? It must be. This is borderline obsession. Okay... 867-5309

Stop being such a weeny, Shady. The OP gets credit for his prediction. You're one of those posters who always walks a fine line saying nothing of substance and then riding on the coattails of others claiming you knew it all along. You didn't make the prediction. You didn't make a prediction. 23% of the 479 people on this board who voted even as of 3 days ago thought Peterman would start. That means 77% of the board was wrong.

Soooo... over/under at 6.5???

I'm just envisioning the Ravens defenders salivating right now. Peterman's strength is all the pre-snap stuff and knowing where he wants to go with the ball. I've never coached or played football at a real competitive level, but I'd guess there are going to be a number of plays where the Ravens give a man-coverage look pre-snap with the outside CB a good distance--maybe as much as 10 yards--off KB or Say or whoever he's defending to bait Peterman into committing to that throw before the snap. Then as the ball is snapped the DB gets the jump on that out-route the way we've seen so many times. That's the start of game planning against him. I really hope I'm wrong and Peterman throws 4 TDs and 0 picks, but honestly, what do you think the over/under is for Peterman Interceptions? Over/under 1.5? Over/under 2.5? Over/under 3.5?

Doesn't matter what the reason is. He made the call and was right. The rest of us were wrong. I actually said after the 3rd preseason game I'd rather see Peterman start, but it solely had to do with the potential of immediately destroying our investment due to a terrible OL. I have no idea if or how much that factored in, but starting Peterman gives more flexibility in the sense that if he does suck, you bench him. Benching Allen after he's named the starter is trickier. So there are a number of ways I can see this as the correct decision, even if it's not the exciting decision. I feel more anxious than eager about Sunday's game. I truly hope Peterman is a much improved QB. We start legitimately finding out this weekend.

And it wasn't. And I genuinely hope Peterman is the next Tom Brady rather than the terrible starting QB I think he is. After that 3rd preseason game I said I wanted Peterman rather than Allen to start week 1 specifically because of how horrible our OL has looked. My head generally likes the move, but I only feel anxiety and no excitement about it.

I genuinely hope Peterman is the next Tom Brady rather than the terrible starting QB I think he is. After that 3rd preseason game I said I wanted Peterman rather than Allen to start week 1 specifically because of how horrible our OL has looked. My head generally likes the move, but I only feel anxiety and no excitement about it.

Guys... seriously...? This just feels obvious. It's always been Allen. It's why I've been calling it since OTAs. Crucify me if I'm wrong. I'm not like some on this board who just run away when they're wrong. But Allen starting has been pretty close to inevitable since we traded up to get him and didn't try to get a proven, viable alternative in front of him.

Guys... seriously...? This just feels obvious. It's always been Allen. It's why I've been calling it since OTAs. Crucify me if I'm wrong. I'm not like some on this board who just run away when they're wrong. But Allen starting has been pretty close to inevitable since we traded up to get him and didn't try to get a proven, viable alternative in front of him.

Obviously you'd prefer your starting QB named early and you want him to get all the reps. We didn't have that luxury. Now that we're a week out, I'm sure McDermott has his guy chosen. I'm going to be curious if he can get his players to keep completely quiet all week about who's getting all the reps this week.

In a game of inches and individual plays that can win or lose games, a small difference can be all the difference you need.

Do you genuinely not understand the reason for secrecy?

If this were part of the thought process, McCarron would still be on the team and Allen would be the 3rd string QB. McDermott and Beane are clearly comfortable playing Allen this year, sooner or later.

This is gonna be such a fun week

Abstaining doesn't mean it doesn't happen... Who do you THINK starts next week?