transplantbillsfan

No, the guy we traded up to #7 for is our Franchise QB, something that Nate Peterman isn't and will never be. You're full of nothing but hot air. You're going to change usernames before you start supporting Allen, who has clearly already made great strides from college to the draft process to OTAs to Minicamp to Training Camp to Preseason, you're just too foolish to notice. The coaching staff of McDermott and Dabol clearly also feel the same considering Allen wasn't legitimately thought to be part of this QB competition until a week or 2 ago, but now for the first time during the preseason we know who our QB is going into the next game... at the beginning of the week... ...for the dress rehearsal for the season opener. If this isn't obvious to you yet SaviorPete... I mean, BurpleBu... I mean BullBuchanon... you should just change your username, get rid of all your old ones, and start fresh.

You don't care about Josh Allen... the Franchise QB your favorite team? Then you must have been a fan of Peterman at Pitt in college and just naturally rolled your fandom to the Bills in the NFL. I'm going to assume this is the case and at least go from zero respect for you to some respect. So, you stick with your guy even if he's the backup

I think McDermott has essentially given him the keys already without officially saying it.

https://www.buffalobills.com/news/josh-allen-named-starter-for-bills-third-preseason-game Josh Allen named starter for Bills third preseason game Which means Allen is the regular season starter without actually saying it. OP... you have moderator powers for this thread... feel free to shut it down to avoid further embarrassment.

Hmmmmm…. so now Allen's been officially named the starter for our dress rehearsal preseason game after going into the previous 2 games announcing the starter last minute...

The longer he takes to name his starting QB week 1, the longer the Ravens have to split time preparing for 2 very different QBs. Not annoying. Smart.

This is actually a pretty big shift

They're close

Bob Dylan said it best... "The times they are a chaaaaaaanngiiiinnnn"

Drinking in the morning again?

Peterman because he's so obviously not an NFL starting QB. Plus, our D thrives off turnovers and Peterman is a turnover machine since he lacks an NFL arm. I seriously am so annoyed there are people who are such insane trolls or blind homers that they legitimately think Nate Peterman is an NFL starting QB. He's awful. I'm fine with him as a backup QB, though. Backup QBs are pretty universally awful NFL starters.

It's pretty obvious to anyone other than SaviorPeterman/BurpleBull/BullBuchanon (all clearly the same poster) that Allen is starting week 1... I've been saying it since OTAs, actually. But I think McDermott is going to withhold it publicly as long as possible to try to get some upper hand on Baltimore. Remember... practices are now basically closed to the media. No need to name the starter as long as McDermott is giving reps to Allen in practice.

BurpleBull and BullBuchanon, too... but all 3 are probably just the same poster... So good point!

Here's an interesting (and accurate...?) theory that Sal Capaccio actually found...

He did but I don't know if that was planned or because of McCarron's injury. When he's the starter next Sunday in game 3, that'll be different.

Yeah all the interviews today were indicators the competition is ongoing... not finished despite some wacky theories that Friday's game cemented Peterman as the starter already. They're likely to "rotate" as the media is there, but since all practices and 11 on 11s are now closed to the media, I also think McDermott might be using that to his advantage as far as the element of surprise for week 1. I bet Allen gets his first team reps for the first time next Sunday. I'll be curious if McDermott holds out in naming the starter beyond that.

Window into my reality, huh? What reality do you think that is? I bet you're wrong. The rest of that post makes no sense... so that means you're entire post makes no sense... Good talk, breh (hint, hint... )

Adequate? I won't even quibble with whether I agree or disagree about the other stuff--or the very use of the phrase "I seen" in any context-- but implying adequate is anything we'd be fine with at QB after pushing at-least-adequate out the door in the offseason in order to upgrade on at-least-adequate is very strange logic.

Don't forget his stupid decision to try throwing the football 2 yards beyond the LOS and getting a penalty that results in loss of down (But no incomplete pass to hurt those stats!!!) with a 3rd and massively long. Or the next stupid decision on the very next play on 3rd and long to scramble for 3 yards rather than trying to throw for the 1st down. No incomplete pass there, either, plus 3 yards in the positive on the ground for his rushing stats... PUNT. A 3 & out drive that consisted of 1 incomplete pass (the awful sideline one that shoulda been picked) and 3 rushing yards despite the fact that the reality there is that Peterman was AWFUL.

What false reality? Is this a joke? I'm going to pretend I'm you... this is how stats lie: Brah, Peterman completed 80% of his pass attempts (double digit pass attempts, too!!!) and averaged 11.3 YPA all while throwing for a TD and NO PICKS!!! And he was only sacked once!!! His passer rating was off the charts!!! 147.1!!! That's the false reality Peterman's stats reflect, and if you think those stats are an accurate reflection of how good he was or what McDermott actually is weighing in his evaluation, you don't know football.

Not insecure. Not fighting. Talking. And FWIW... I never used the word "scrub" for Peterman... you did... BurpleBull and Bullbuchanon are watching

My anti-Nate narrative is that he's too weak-armed to be an NFL starting QB. If Peterman and Allen were exactly as they are but Peterman also had Allen's arm strength... But Peterman's arm strength is just so bad that it's to the point of being debilitating to the team.