transplantbillsfan

1st dropback--Charles Clay can't catch 3rd dropback--OL gets blown up and no WRs open. This one is clearly on the OL. 4th dropback--OL (Groy) gets blown up letting a free running #99 run up the middle to Allen. #99 is running free 4 yards away from Allen as Allen's proper 1st read (who ends up open) is 4 yards from even turning back to the football. Clearly on Groy. It's not like this involved a blitz and a hot read or anything. 5th dropback--There's no all-22 for preseason or anything, but something causes Allen to hold back and not throw the out to Benjamin, looks like he should've thrown it. Was there a Safety or LB right there? I can't tell. Bad throw to Clay that shoulda been a TD. Uncharacteristic throw there. This play was definitely on Allen. 6th dropback--Steps up nicely in the pocket to avoid some pressure then throws a baldy inaccurate dart 20 yards down the field. There's a guy there, but with defenders around him and the ball is high. Bad throw. Put it on Allen, but trying to make a play on 3rd and 13 and it's not a pick or a sack. 7th & 8th % 9th dropbacks--Complete passes. He seems to wait for Benjamin on the outside, I wonder if that's partially a chemistry thing. Next is a screen defenders sniff out well. Next is the shovel to Coleman. 10th dropback--Scramble for 1st down that wasn't challenged. As for whether he could pass it, Coleman is sorta open across the middle but he's short of the sticks and going to be tackled. 11th dropback--Incomplete throwaway rolling to the sidelines. Looks like no one is open. 12th dropback--complete pass. Play was well covered but he throws it to the TE as he's cutting. 13th dropback--OL gets blown up again. Groy again. Pushed right back into Allen as he's about to pass it to either Coleman or Clay (?) Who get open. I stopped there. Good GAWD that was ugly!!! I'm actually a lot more impressed with Allen after watching that and pausing it at certain points to try to assess what's going on. Geez, I hope our OL is a lot better than this. Groy was right to take a whole bunch of the blame here.

Look who comes out of the woodwork at the moment Allen had a bad game. What a joke. This from the guy who said Allen had a 5% chance of being the starter week 1 and then went into hiding when the chances increased

Pretty much this

Allen definitely showed me he can take a hit yesterday, and I'm not trying to be funny at all as I type that. But even though I think he's mentally, physically and emotionally tough enough to start the season, I'm really glad I'm not the one responsible for making that decision. McDermott has a dilemma on his hands. Peterman might make quicker decisions at the moment and get the ball out faster, but you can bet the Ravens would be salivating any time he even looks to the sidelines. Also, the Bengals starting front 4 on defense might just be one of the best in football.

And you're entitled to your opinion, even if it's incorrect.

Those who are ignoring Peterman's preseason statistics or who are putting an asterisk next to them (I'd fall under the latter group) are looking at the kinds of throws Peterman has been making. He's been very good at what he's been asked to do, but the vast majority of his throws have been pretty short quick throws with little to no defensive pressure in his face. At least 2 of his TDs this preseason were to wide open TEs on pretty clearly busted coverages. So, are all of these open WRs and TEs he's getting the ball to wide open because of his doing or bad defense? If they're open somehow because of him, whether through audibles at the line or whatever, then that's awesome and impressive on his part. To me, I saw a lot of bad defense when Peterman played, particularly against the Browns and Bengals. This hype train on Peterman's preseason play just reminds me of last year, when everyone watched him and also hyped up his play because he looked like a savvy vet or something in preseason. Then the Chargers game happened. Pump the brakes. Reality is surely in the middle here. Peterman has improved from last season, but a lot of his same flaws are still there, particularly his arm strength. And I don't think we'll know until we see him playing a real NFL defense in regular season action whether he can capably hold the reins for any period of time. He may have earned the starting job for week 1. But he'd be far from the unquestioned starter even if McDermott names him the starting QB tomorrow. Rivers is an established vet. You aren't going to make his habits better or worse. They are what they are. Allen is still young and learning. You don't want him getting clobbered constantly and getting happy feet. I don't think he's mentally frail so I don't think he'll get shell-shocked. But it's hard to teach proper mechanics and footwork when there's not a big enough pocket to use proper footwork or mechanics. The problem with a really bad OL could be that Allen ends up having to constantly play hero ball, throwing with awkward deliveries from awkward angles. We've seen him do that already this preseason with some success. But repetition is key. He needs a cleaner pocket so he can develop some good habits. I'm not saying NO pressure, but if yesterday is indicative of how bad our OL is, he will almost NEVER have a clean pocket and is going to develop bad habits.

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.

I think you need a baseline level of NFL success at OL for this to be true. With a terrible OL, the only way for a QB to be successful is to have a strong running game and a very quick passing game. Rookie QBs just generally aren't going to be able to operate those really quick passing games where the ball is constantly out in 2 seconds or less. That's not just an Allen thing. And on top of that, I'm sure that's not the type of passing game Dabol would prefer to operate with Allen at QB. So while Allen might get that experience to start, the entire offense would probably pretty severely adjusted once we massively upgrade our OL. I really am on the fence at this point. I'll be extremely excited (and pretty anxious) if Allen is named the starter, which he still might be. I'll be kinda blah if Peterman is named the starter, even though my head tells me it's probably the smarter decision right now.

But see you're combining two issues here. Those of us "realizing" what you say we're realizing are realizing how horrible our OL really looks. Yeah, I realize they look horrible. Because of that, I don't want our long term investment destroyed. But your last sentence here is separate and what I think is a non-issue at this point. Allen would be capable of starting if we had at least a decent OL that could afford him some base-level of protection. Right now our OL looks like it's going to get a rookie QB killed, though. He doesn't look like the project anymore. Our OL does. And I want our OL fixed before I see him on the field.

I think you're a little off base here. I agree with the idea of shelving Allen, but I don't agree at all that he's the 3rd best QB on the roster. Did you see the OL protection he was afforded yesterday? Our OL somehow got progressively worse throughout the preseason. They were at least "pretty decent" against the Panthers. They were "not good" against the Browns. They were "terrifyingly bad" against the Bengals. What do you think would have happened with Peterman were in there yesterday? There were a few plays Allen held onto the ball and could have gotten rid of it, but multiple sacks were the result of the OL falling apart immediately. I just envision Peterman trying to get rid of the ball and throwing multiple picks the way he did against the Chargers when he got pressured. There was yet another pick-6 a defender couldn't grab yesterday. What happens during the regular season when you have starting caliber DBs going after those interceptions? Peterman thrives off those short quick timing routes and I think we can have success to start the season with him because Dabol can game plan for him. But at some point--and it might be as early as week 1--defenses will be able to take that away and force Peterman to throw to places like the boundaries where he's so weak throwing the ball to. Shelve Allen to protect him physically if our OL is truly this bad. But some of this praise of Peterman's play in the preseason is just weird. Every time he played he had an OL that was giving him a "perfect princess pocket" as my wife calls it. And his TEs and WRs are just so friggin wide open. How many plays were there in the 1st half yesterday that they're showing the replays to see WRs open for Allen and how often were none actually open? Start Peterman because it's close enough where you can physically protect your Franchise while not getting all the vets on your team upset for not starting the best guy. I do, however, think it's interesting McDermott still isn't naming his starter. The longer this lasts I think the higher the likelihood Allen actually starts. If they do start him, I sure do hope they manage to fix whatever OL problems they have. Put Teller in there. Name Groy the starting Center. Trade for Chance Warmack…. do whatever... get it fixed.

Love the post, Indy. I agree that people are overreacting, and I'm a little guilty of it, myself. Our OL just looks abysmal. Yet, at the same time, you're right--we looked terrible last preseason and still made the playoffs. I'm still really excited about the regular season. And I honestly still think McDermott still finds a way to build another successful season where we're very much in the Wildcard race at the very end of the season. The offensive line just looked so bad, but one thing I'm also starting to wonder is you're #4. Maybe Clay can be used as trade bait for a capable OL...? I don't think Charles Clay is very good. He has and has always had a seriously difficult time catching the football. I'd like to see us get some compensation for him, if possible, while keeping any combination of Croom, O'Leary, Thomas, and/or Khari Lee. But yeah, I agree. No reason to push the panic button.

So that when Peterman gets knocked out of the game in week 1, McCarron can step in so that Allen gets maybe another week or two of the OL trying to find ANY answer before he's inevitably thrust in as the starter when McCarron is then knocked out of the game in week 2, 3, or 4.

It has nothing to do with his performance. I think he's as capable or more of starting and being viably successful this season. The OL is why I don't want him to start. It's terrifying how bad they look. Throw Peterman or McCarron to the wolves.

I'm a supporter of winning the most possible games while properly developing our young Franchise QB. Frankly, if our OL wasn't so bad, I think Allen's development happens best and quickest on the field with live game action. Right now it's purely the fright fest of an OL I've seen this preseason that gives me pause in starting Allen, which might actually still be the way to go, anyway. I trust McDermott's judgement and I trust he'll be quick to course correct quickly if need be, as he did when we played the Chargers last year.

Yes, not ever throw outs. I’m fine starting him now in order to protect Allen and let him try to prove himself, but how the hell can even his most ardent supporters not see that he’s a pick 6 waiting to happen every single game? But our OL is apparently atrocious and he’s expendable. I’m good with him as the starter to begin the season. It’ll either be really entertaining as a nice successful surprise or it’ll be really entertaining as a Comedy of Errors.

Gotta be honest, I might disagree with Vic’s take here... we might need to throw Peterman it McCarron to the wolves and pray they rise to the occasion while putting Allen on bubble wrap because our starting OL might be historically bad, but... https://buffalonews.com/2018/08/26/vic-carucci-bills-still-should-make-allen-opening-day-starter/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=puma&utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1535334589 Vic Carucci: Bills still should make Allen opening-day starter Allen showed the proper level of maturity and leadership to resist any urge to point fingers. He rightfully accepted some of the blame for not always being quick enough to make throws, no doubt because he wasn't always sure of what he was seeing across the line from an accomplished and well-coached defense. "I didn't do a good enough job getting the ball out on time, getting it to our playmakers," Allen said. "You know, holding onto the ball is not going be too great most of the time. I've got to do a better job, but there's a lot to learn from." and Yes, Peterman looked far more impressive. He needed only two throws to account for more passing yards (35) than Allen had in six completions. He looked more poised and in control. Peterman also wasn't going up against pass-rushing stud Carl Lawson, who had two-and-a-half of the five sacks, or Dunlap or any of the Bengals' other front-liners. For the record, Allen didn't see his performance as a backward step. "No, not at all," he said. "Getting out there with the ones, obviously, it's moving really fast. To see that speed, it was eye-opening. They have a really good defense and they came out and they brought it. "But at the same time, we had plays in place where they could have worked if I got the ball out on time. It just didn't happen enough tonight, but like I said, we'll just continue to grow." and So how long is long enough to wait before putting Allen on the field? What is the sense in allowing Peterman to take a beating in the meantime? What will that prove, other than McDermott, his coaching staff and General Manager Brandon Beane losing valuable time to get Allen experience?

This game gives McDermott the freedom to select any of the 3 QBs as his opening week starter with little warranted criticism from the fans or, more importantly, Bills players themselves. It's pretty easy to make a very reasonable argument for Allen, Peterman or McCarron right now. I just wonder if McDermott gets it out of the way and names a starter in the next couple days or if he extends the waiting game.

I think I was most delusional in thinking our OL would be all right. I haven't totally dismissed the idea of them working out the kinks for the regular season, but right now I would be absolutely fine if McCarron or Peterman are named the starter and it's all on how bad our OL is. Allen appears to be physically, mentally and emotionally tough enough to start week 1 and today's lack of success clearly was on the OL and WRs dropping balls much more than him, but this is a good excuse McDermott can use to put Allen in bubble wrap to start the season while McCarron or Peterman either get beat the hell up or rise to the occasion.

I'm fine with starting Peterman week 1 and either feeding him to the wolves or letting him prove all his doubters--like me--very wrong. Right now I guess our OL is looking like it's going to take a massive step backwards from last year. I think Allen is tough enough to stand back there behind the sieve of our OL, but now I'm reaching the "why risk it?" point. I still don't have faith Peterman will be any good once the regular season hits and I think Allen starts by week 5, but I'll be happy if he proves me wrong.

All part of the process guys... McDermott is lulling our week 1 opponent Baltimore into thinking they can absolutely dominate us both offensively and defensively by asking his players to lay down and get dominated in the preseason dress rehearsal. It's all just part of the master plan.

Huh? What's "my side?" I think he's pretty accurate with regard to his feelings about Peterman, but I'm sure there are plenty of other QBs reddog would feel good about. Peterman has just done nothing to earn feelings of comfort at the QB position. I think it's unfathomable that someone earlier actually said they'd be 100% comfortable if he's the starter.

Sorry, I should have prefaced that with a ‘no reasonable fan of a team with a viable Franchise QB...’

No one ever wants the backup to play. I hope Allen has Favre-like durability and toughness so that whoever our backup QB is will be fine.

You're 100% comfortable with Peterman as a starter? Yikes!

C'mon now... trying to make a little peaceful compromise here