Ed_Formerly_of_Roch

I would strongly argue that there isn't a connection or at least there shouldn't be. The problem is there simply are not enough top level QB's to go around for all the teams. There's many things you can blame GM's for but not finding a franchise QB shouldn't be one of them as half the teams in the league are doing no better at this. And if you fire the GM for this reason, all you're doing then is bringing in some other guy who truthfully has no better chance of finding the answer at QB than the guy you just fired. Hey lets bring in someone from Greenbay, they found Farve and Rodgers. Was it really that they were smarter than everyone else or just got lucky. You certainly wouldn't want to bring in anyone from Atlanta at that time as they must have been completely clueless for letting Farve go. In reality, nobody has much of any ideas on QB's and which ones do succeed and which ones don't because if they did everyone would be doing it too. I will agree that GM's will sometimes take chances on risky QB choices again only because there aren't enough good ones to go around, but I think it's a mistake to be penalized or fired for that. Nor should you be penalized for not taking a chance on a risky one, but then the team will likely never become good either. So GM's do need to take chances, but likely will fail more than succeed when it comes to QB's. I think the bigger reason GM's fail is for giving out bad over paid contracts more often to non QB's as usually with QB's by the time the 1st contract is up, they've figured out whether this is the guy or not, but position players is where they get in trouble. (see MD) and then often doubling down and pushing money down the road until eventually it all blows up. And the other area of failure for GM's is multiple bad draft picks.

Except he's be competing with 30 other teams to pick him up and not to mention would not have had 3 weeks of training camp under his belt to have learned the offense. Just like when the Browns traded for TT, they knew we were going to release him, but they wanted exclusive rights to him so they made the trade. We did the same here for a 2020 7th round pick. So what QB should he have taken instead that you' could argue was a guaranteed day one starter. Everyone one of them had some type of blemish. Yes Darnold is starting, but trhere were/are long term questions about him too.

If that's the case, then the team is in serious trouble as close to half of all rookie QB's fail regardless of how high or low they are picked. There was a chart posted a few months back that showed over the last7 seasons or so, only about 30% of first round QB's became true franchise type QB's. So judging anyone on that is bad.

Mathematically you answered the question! Apparently you hate them all! Can Shaq play guard. It would certainly take some time for the DL man to get around him, unless he runs between his legs. I could see this happening only if they get off to a real bad start, 2-5 some team who is in serious playoff contention and has their RB injured and out for the year. Then a trade may happen and if desperate enough may get something decent in return. I also do agree that barring a spectacular season like 1500 yards he'll be gone in the off-season, RB is the easiest position too for a rookie to come in and excel.

If he's suspended for the season, why bother, next season the Bills will have money to sign someone who's not likely to get suspended again. What did he do, make it through one season clean. I don't care how talented you are, WR takes some time to adjust to the QB. If he's suspended lets say for only 8 games (likely will be more) by the time he comes back and gets on track with QB the year would be practically over. I recall even when the Bills signed James Loften, his first year he, took him some time to geton track with the rest of the offense. So no, to me is a waste if he's getting suspended.

And you have one of the worst posting records ever! You have know idea how to make a decent post and what you're talking about The only person who thinks your ideas are any good is yourself!

So you just said yourself, It's literally that close. It has to be conclusive to overturn. So if it's literally that close, how can you expect them to over turn? If you want to argue as Kelly said to build confidence fine, but likely he would have lost the challenge as was way to close to overturn.

Yeah can see that happening. Maybe standard practice, McD tell one of the trainers to trip him on the sideline , take him out for the year.

And I can accept that argument of challenging for that reason. I doubt it would have ever been over turned but if you're doing it strictly as a confidence builder then OK.

Take off your Bill's colored glasses and watch it then. Was he forward as you say maybe, but there's no way you or anyone who watches it objectively can tell for certain when the knee touched watching the replay. IMO his knee touched while he was extending the ball, but was before the ball was fully extended and at that moment still was short of the sticks when the knee touched. Was it a first down, who knows, but the fact that we're arguing about it and others also commented that it wasn't so clear cut while others say it was , indicates it would have been highly unlikely it ever would have been over turned.

Even based on old rules, where is the ball the instant your body contacts the ground, that determines ball placement. The new slide rules potentially can bring the ball back further, but either way ball can't go beyond position once contacting ground.

Yes watched it If you think that was a no brainer over turn, you better get your eyes checked. There has to be conclusive evidence to over turn. Way to close to overturn, in fact I'd argue they made the correct all based on where the ball was when he first contacted to ground.

That's not working very well tonight either as guess most of these "freedom fighters" who broadcast figured out this game isn't worth watching. Only found about two streams and they were all gummed up with overlays. I've noticed if there's a stream on Reddit that's titled "NFL Gamepass" those threads work the best, but again none tonight.

Did you want McD to challenge just for the sake of challenging? From what I saw, there was no way that call would have ever been over turned. If they had initially ruled it a 1st down that call too would have stuck as there was no conclusive evidence to overturn either way. The TV broadcast showed the replay and stopped the replay to show how close it was as the ball was dead even with the sticks. The problem was from what I saw he actually contacted the ground about 5 frames ago and at that point was still extending the ball, but the ball also was still behind the line. That's what I saw, I could be wrong, but the fact that I feel I saw that is enough to say there wasn't enough evidence to overturn. You need to take off your Bills tinted sunglasses and watch things objectively.

I agree. My thinking to was if Peterman is going to start Wk 1, they'd have given Allan all he reps he could have this week. I was surprised somewhat that AJ did play as I also thought as a vet playing AJ tonight would have been beneath him. So also does make me think they are trying to showcase him for trade value

I'd suggest an eye exam! If he challenged never would have been over turned. Looking at the replay they showed Allan with the ball extended out even with the 1st down marker, but he had already touched the ground when they stopped the replay, you really needed to back up the replay a few frames and at that point, IMO the ball wasn't yet even with the marker. And even if you want to argue it was even, there was no way it was anywhere close enough to be conclusive to overturn. So then we could have posts why is McD wasting challenges on calls he should know will never be over turned.

And Woods and Goodwin were both gone before Beane got here. However thats' no excuse Beane still should have signed him, even though already gone.

If Peterman struggles then go with Allen. Struggles likely meant lost games, with the early schedule likely anyone could struggle with the overall team around him. At that point the season is likely lost anyway, so then give Allen the start. By then are thru the tough part of the schedule and he has learned something watching from the sideline too. On the other hand if your position is not to start Bridgewater week 1, likely be week 2 or 3 from the sounds of things AJ would be fine to go back to anyway, maybe even from game 1 from what we're hearing. Sounds like AJ would be available in much less time than it would take a new guy to learn the offense and be familiar with those around him. Overall with the injury settlement, plus guaranteed money, and then pay Bridgewater, it would likely cost more to bring him in so what is gained, appears nothing IMO

So you bring in Bridgewater a now week before season starts, no reps with players, doesn't know playbook, no prior work with coaching staff. And you think he'll be better than Peterman. Great idea if this was Madden football, then it work work fine!!

Yes but t hat doesn't change the fact that all you're doing is swapping out one backup for another. And two of them who when with the Bills could never even get on the field due to health issues. As someone pointed out yesterday, our issues aren't depth, it's the starting five. So don't see how this changes anything. You want to complain about play on the line, fine. But complaining about not keeping the two you mention is pretty laughable.

I realize the players don't want 18 games, but wonder if they've figured out how much taking the revenues away for those extra two pre-season games will lower the overall cap? I'm sure thye'd all say we care more about our health than the money.... until they no longer get the money.

He could have challenged it, but from what I saw very likely would never have been reversed. One of those plays not conclusive enough either way, in fact think it was more conclusive that he was short. When the knee hit the ground he was still short. Fox stopped the replay and looking at the replay you could easily argue the ball was even with the sticks, but IMO when they stopped the replay was after the knee was already down. If the replay was backed up a few frames to when the knee first hit, the ball was still short or at the very least too close to over turn.

So who brings more to the table? Getting Jack Nicklaus to show up for a few games or dating the owners daughter?? Since Kim turned me down, I'll go with keep Jack around. (though admittedly Croom seems much better of the two)

Agreed with you, When Woods got hurt and Groy filled in the last time at center was Cog already here or was that the year prior? Glenn also played pretty well that season too, before getting all nicked up.

Watkins would have been gone now with nothing at all in return. Dareus, agree better WHEN he fels like showing up. And hopefully doesn't get suspended again for something stupid that he does.