Shaw66

That's REALLY unfair. There's a very clear trajectory for guys like McCarron, the McCown trajectory. He's a good guy, hard working, he keeps learning. Because he's only marginal, he doesn't stick with teams. Teams have to perceive a need for a guy like this. The need grows as they get older, because they're important in the QB room. They become solid backups. But early in their careers, they move a lot, because they are only marginal - they are on the margins of being useful. Your backup QB is almost NEVER starter material. Good QBs don't stay on the bench long. But that doesn't mean he isn't or can't be a good backup.

That's really good. Thanks for retelling it.

I liked rooting for McCarron, but the NFL has seen a lot like him - great college players, dedicated to the game but simply not good enough. I wish him well, although not with Gruden. Bills will be fine.

Yeah, I knew he had a few extra minutes here and there, but it's a better story if we focus just on his record-setting performance. I'm okay with the trade, too. McCarron wasn't going to win games for the Bills, so I'm just as glad to have him gone and let the young guys see what they can do. For people who are distressed because the Bills are leaving themselves in the hands of a virtual rookie, one way or the other, stop and think how Eagles felt when they traded a better vet (Bradford), leaving the job to a rookie. That didn't work out too badly. It's a different league, and season after season we surprises because we weren't focused on the right things. In that regard, I think the 4th quarter comeback could have been an important sign. Last season the Bills were really good in the second half of games, and they did it again Thursday. That's a sign that McDermott is doing things right. When the coach is doing the right things, the quality of the team often improves quickly. Weird as all this is, I'm still not convinced the Bills are worse than 7-9.

Gene Hackman comes to mind in Enemy of the State, when he says to WIll Smith (just imagine he's saying it to McBeane): Either you're really smart or you're really stupid. Going naked with two really young QBs is the best evidence that (1) McBeane know something we don't know, (2) McBeane don't know what they're doing or (3) despite what they say, it's all about 2019.

So I was explaining to my wife, who is not NEARLY as into the Bills as I am, that the Bills traded AJ. Although I've explained to her before who the three QBs were, she's always half paid attention then forgotten about it altogether. So I'm telling her about the trade, and for her to understand the significance, I had to retell the story of who the three QBs are. The story came out, honest to God, something like this: They traded AJ McCarron, so now the Bills have only two QBs. I chuckled. So the EXPERIENCED QB is this guy - and I began to laugh. My wife looked at me. The EXPERIENCED QB has played exactly one half of one game in the NFL, and in that - now I'm really laughing a lot - and in that one half in the NFL he threw FIVE interceptions. Now my wife is laughing, too. Their INEXPERIENCED QB is a rookie who played in the college minor leagues for a few years, the real minors, so he hasn't experienced anything even like big-time college football. If you think about it, it's pretty funny.

It's really great. I drive over 6 hours to get to the games for exactly what you describe. Just great.

Yeah. Its just hard to know what's causing everything. Apparently Allen was holding the ball because he wasn't getting out of the huddle fasten enough to give him time to look over the defense. If that's an Allen problem, and Peterman does it better, that's a big difference. The point is that rookies have a lot to learn to do just the basics, and if Allen isn't over that threshold, he just won't be able to produce very well. Rookie qbs lead the league in sacks every year. They just can't handle all that's on their plate. Allen looks close - I like his poise especially, but as long as he's killing drives like he did Sunday, he isn't likely to win games. Yes, the o line was bad, but it's been bad for Peterman too. Peterman is getting the ball out. As I said, let's see how Allen does Thursday. I think it's Peterman because he clearly has been the best on the field. He has been very effective. Why play AJ when he hasn't shown anything? I think it's between Allen and Peterman. I'm happy either way. I'd start Peterman until Allen shows me he has learned more about handling the whole job.

I agree with this analysis. I think it's an accurate assessment of where Allen is. I disagree with conclusion. The assessment establishes that Allen WILL be the best qb of the three, but it ignores the fact that Peterman has been consistently more effective. Peterman gives the Bills a better chance to win the next game, preseason or not. Until Allen can be consistently more effective, Peterman should play. Will I be upset if McD goes with Allen? Not at all. He is close enough, and as the article suggests, he will learn a lot if he is playing. I'd guess that if Allen starts, it will take him only half the season to catch up pass Peterman. But if you want to beat Baltimore, I'd start Peterman. Good stuff. You make the opposite argument and it make sense. I think Allen has been slow to get the ball out and Peterman hasn't. Allen will learn, probably, but until he does, being slow to get ball out means he will be sacked a lot. Sacks kill drives, and dead drives mean no points. That's why I like Peterman for now. Maybe we will see something different on Thursday.

Has to be Peterman. Allen looked like a rookie taking sacks. His job.is to get the ball out quickly. Either he couldn't find anyone or he couldn't decide, but it doesn't matter. Taking sacks kills drives. Allen's better physically but Peterman did his job. I agree. Except he did fail. Peterman put points up and Allen didn't. Peterman did his job. The best qb should play, and Pete's been the best.

Thanks for posting this. Great memories. I, too, am happy they preserved pieces of the stadium.

I agree. It's really incredible. It's like having your own Bills clippings service. If it's any good and it's Bills related, it's here and here quickly. Thanks, guys. What you do is great.

Agreed. Taylor is a great athlete and he still may be an excellent qb.

I agree with you. But points defense is what matters, not yards, and second half defense really matters, and Bills were good at that. I don't know what will happen, but your great leap forward to 10 is possible. Three potentially good additions on the line, a potentially great addition at middle linebacker, and a returning solid secondary. No reason that group can't be better.

This team was at the league average in scoring defense. Many players are back for their second season in the system. Plenty of reasons it could be good.

I agree with the others who say theres very little we know now. What really matters is to go 4-4 while your team is growing into something good. Whether they will do that depends on too much that is unknowable today. What will Edmund's be like in the second half? Davis? Murphy? Philip's? A half dozen others? What we do know is that the Bill's have a good defensive coach, and that's the single most important factor.

I don't know if he's correct or not. My point is only that he takes data that supports his point and ignores data that doesn't support it.

It's easy to create the narrative you want to support your conclusion. He wanted to conclude the Bills will be bad, and maybe they will be. But he skews the argument in multiple ways to make his point. He says the Bills were horrible in yards gained and yards allowed. True. But they were much, much better in points scored and points allowed. The NFL is not a yards league, it's a points league. He says the Bills were lucky because of McD's coaching. Well, maybe he's just a very good coach. He ignores the possibility that Allen could be really good. He ignores that the offensive line returns three starters and in Miller and Grey have two guys with substantial experience. He just chooses to write about the things that COULD be bad to prove that the BIlls WILL be bad. It's a lot better than 1%. perennially overrated is right. Newton seems to be effectively only of he runs often, and even then he isn't great. Allen almost certainly is a better thrower. He's smarter. His ego is in check. I wouldn't trade Allen for Newton even up.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Interesting.

Thanks. Someone needed to say this.

Whoa! A bit over the top, a bit unfair, but generally right on the money. We all miss some good written work here and there by not subscribing, but there's enough good stuff here and other places to satisfy me and I think most people. I've been thinking about subscribing to one or the other, but if the content in the Athletic is thin, then I'm down to BN. I still may try them, in part because I give them credit for dumping Sully and Gleason (even though it was to save money and not because they were so biased they weren't readable).

This more or less right on the money. They show fewer highlights. They report on the same teams and the same players, over and over. It's all just headlines. They do no quality reporting. Take the ESPYs as an example. The ESPYs once was a really good sports highlights show - all the highlights of the year. It used to be fun to watch.

Yes Thomas in the end zone. And Holmes on the right sideline for the first down. And a dozen more. Impressive.

It looks that way to me, too. But it's way, way too early to bank it.

Dream, pal, dream. If losing those guys created such a talent deficit, why did the team do 9-7. Why not give the Beane and McDermott credit for figuring out they could win without those guys. Do you not like Allen? If you do, why are you disappointed that the Bills traded picks to get him? They can't address the entire roster all at once. Can't. McDermott was quick to can Dennison. McDermott must see some things in Castillo that you don't. But none of that is the point. The point is that seeing Allen makes me dream of what could be.