Jump to content
BuffaloBud420

Start Allen from Day 1/ QB competition

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yes, I pointed specifically to the success of probably the three best QBs in football. To repeat, probably the three best QBs in football started by taking a year on the bench. Yeah, some guys have started right away and done pretty well. There are also a ton of guys you didn't mentiion who started right away and did ****ty. 

 

Most of those guys who started and did well - unlike Josh Allen - were not thought of as developmental guys before they were drafted. At most they were thought of as guys who might possibly need to sit, but that far understates what the consensus was on Allen. And plenty of Bills fans on here were arguing that we shouldn't pick Allen specifically because he'd need to spend a year or two on the bench. Now that he's ours most of those same posters have decided that that need has conveniently disappeared. 

 

Different guys have different needs. If a guy doesn't need development, fine, play him. But the point is that it's pretty much near-unanimous among non-Bills fans that Allen does need development and a lot of it.

 

You're right that sitting QBs hasn't been done much lately. But that's not a good reason it shouldn't be. 

 

It's not presumptuous to assume that sitting him is far and away the most likely way to maximize the guy. If anything it was the consensus before the draft. And yeah, now the consensus has changed in Buffalo where people want to open and drink their Christmas present bottle of wine at 7:00 a.m. on the 25th regardless that some wines really really need aging and that our vintage is widely considered to be one of those. That impatience should be completely ignored.

 

The 3 best QBs in football at this moment sat on the bench, not in some altruistic effort to shield them from the horrors of the starting lineup, but because each one of them had a really solid vet QB in front of them in Bledsoe, Flutie and Favre. He'll, they might not have actually gotten any better sitting on the bench... you seem to think it's automatic that they did, but it's not. Maybe Brady and Brees have another Super Bowl each and Rodgers has 2 more if they all started from day 1. Maybe they don't. But the reason they sat had little to nothing to do with development (Brees might be the closest exception), but all to do with a significantly established pro bowl or borderline pro bowl caliber QB sitting in front of them.

 

We have AJ McCarron.

 

Maybe he proves to be obviously better than Allen as Bledsoe, Flutie, and Favre were at the time Brady, Brees and Rodgers sat on the bench, and if he does, he should start.

 

But if he doesn't, you start Allen, because he's better and gives the team a better chance to win.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

The 3 best QBs in football at this moment sat on the bench, not in some altruistic effort to shield them from the horrors of the starting lineup, but because each one of them had a really solid vet QB in front of them in Bledsoe, Flutie and Favre. He'll, they might not have actually gotten any better sitting on the bench... you seem to think it's automatic that they did, but it's not. Maybe Brady and Brees have another Super Bowl each and Rodgers has 2 more if they all started from day 1. Maybe they don't. But the reason they sat had little to nothing to do with development (Brees might be the closest exception), but all to do with a significantly established pro bowl or borderline pro bowl caliber QB sitting in front of them.

 

We have AJ McCarron.

 

Maybe he proves to be obviously better than Allen as Bledsoe, Flutie, and Favre were at the time Brady, Brees and Rodgers sat on the bench, and if he does, he should start.

 

But if he doesn't, you start Allen, because he's better and gives the team a better chance to win.

 

 

Yeah, they were vets, but solid? Brees sat on the bench behind the "really solid vet" Doug Flutie in a a season when Flutie was tearing the league up to the tune of 56.4% completions, 15 TDs and 18 INTs, a 6.6 YPA and a QB Rating of 72.0. How is that solid, or anything but crappy, really.

 

And while I liked Drew Bledsoe overall, he wasn't having success or being "really solid" in Brady's rookie year. 58.8% completions, 17 TDs and 13 INTs, a terrible 6.2 YPA and a 77.3 QB rating.

 

So that's not just not true. But more, even if it had been completely true, it would still have been beside the point. By far the most important thing that will happen at the Ralph this year is Josh Allen's improvement or lack thereof. San Diego won five games that year. Flutie was a place-holder, an absolute footnote to the fact that the building blocks were starting to fall in place behind Brees' facemask. Same with New England who also won five games in Brady's first year. The fact that they had decent QB play that year means nothing to New England fans then or now. They were building for the future and that was by far the most important thing that went on that year is that building, what was happening inside Brady's head and the heads of a bunch of other players figuring out how Belichick's system was supposed to be run. 

 

Yeah, they had vet QBs. We have one too. And in the long run the veterans play meant nothing. What meant something was what was happening inside the minds of Brees and Brady. 

 

Rodgers certainly did have solid vet play ahead of him. Which again was far less important in Green Bay than what was happening inside Aaron Rodgers.

 

Same here. Unless McCarron is better than we all think - not impossible - he's likely to be what Flutie and Bledsoe were in those years. Which will mean pretty much nothing to how quickly Allen learns.

 

How good the QBs ahead of a young guy are don't mean much to his development unless it means he starts playing early. Which if it's too early might be a very bad thing.

Edited by Thurman#1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best way to learn and improve is to play and get a majority of the reps in practice.  Allen should start.  The team isn't very good so he might as well make his mistakes this year when it doesn't really matter.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

In Day One of rookie mini camp the reports were that Daboll was attached to Allen’s hip on every play, the way it should be, and everyone here thinks that’s a good idea. 

 

During the regular reason the OC is attached to the starting quarterbacks hip on virtually every play in practice - read McCarron - to prepare for the next opponent. The backup gets few reps and is an observer. 

 

If hes not the veterans think you’re not trying to win games. 

 

Why waste that coaching on AJ. 

 

Josh should have to beat McCarron out in practice, which he should, and start from game one, just so he gets the coaching he needs. 

the faster Josh learns the sooner Nate is gone?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

In Day One of rookie mini camp the reports were that Daboll was attached to Allen’s hip on every play, the way it should be, and everyone here thinks that’s a good idea. 

 

During the regular reason the OC is attached to the starting quarterbacks hip on virtually every play in practice - read McCarron - to prepare for the next opponent. The backup gets few reps and is an observer. 

 

If hes not the veterans think you’re not trying to win games. 

 

Why waste that coaching on AJ. 

 

Josh should have to beat McCarron out in practice, which he should, and start from game one, just so he gets the coaching he needs. 

 

 

You're right that the OC will be right on McCarron's hip during the season if he's the starter. Luckily, Allen has two functional legs and freedom of movement and can plant himself right on the OC's other hip. And a lot of the coaching given a starter is less about how to play QB well than about how to specifically run this particular game plan and attack this particular defense. Which isn't a bad thing for a rookie to hear and try to process but it also shouldn't be the only thing he focuses on. 

 

Developmental guys need to work on more global QB skills like mechanics, dropbacks, how to watch film, how defenses work to stop offenses, how to get along with teammates, how to be a leader and so on ... rather than specifically how to defeat the Baltimore Ravens defense using the specific packages put together by the OC that day, which is what the starter tends to be spending all his time on.

 

It isn't a waste to coach AJ. It's not like they send Allen to a basement somewhere while they do so.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

You're right that the OC will be right on McCarron's hip during the season if he's the starter. Luckily, Allen has two functional legs and freedom of movement and can plant himself right on the OC's other hip. And a lot of the coaching given a starter is less about how to play QB well than about how to specifically run this particular game plan and attack this particular defense. Which isn't a bad thing for a rookie to hear and try to process but it also shouldn't be the only thing he focuses on. 

 

Developmental guys need to work on more global QB skills like mechanics, dropbacks, how to watch film, how defenses work to stop offenses, how to get along with teammates, how to be a leader and so on ... rather than specifically how to defeat the Baltimore Ravens defense using the specific packages put together by the OC that day, which is what the starter tends to be spending all his time on.

 

It isn't a waste to coach AJ. It's not like they send Allen to a basement somewhere while they do so.

 

Great post Thurman#1.  If I could of "liked" it more than once I would.

AJ has gone thru this for 4 years already.  Let's see what he's got while Josh Allen "get's his sea legs".

I also believe Dabol will be able to evaluate his offensive scheme better with AJ than with a rookie.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW... Vegas sure thinks Allen will be starting a lot of games this year.

 

Over/Under for games started by Allen is more than any of the other rookie QBs at 10 1/2 games.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, they were vets, but solid? Brees sat on the bench behind the "really solid vet" Doug Flutie in a a season when Flutie was tearing the league up to the tune of 56.4% completions, 15 TDs and 18 INTs, a 6.6 YPA and a QB Rating of 72.0. How is that solid, or anything but crappy, really.

 

And while I liked Drew Bledsoe overall, he wasn't having success or being "really solid" in Brady's rookie year. 58.8% completions, 17 TDs and 13 INTs, a terrible 6.2 YPA and a 77.3 QB rating.

 

Some analysis by omission here.  Brees sat behind Flutie who had just been shafted for a year by the Bills by being 2nd string to Rob Johnson after being a Pro Bowler and NFL Comeback player in 1998.  The Bills cut Flutie and the Chargers brought him in as the clear starter because of what he had done with the Bills, establishing he was a solid NFL vet.  Also, the Chargers went 1-15 the year before Flutie and Brees got there.  And Flutie started out that season 5-2, and while in typical Flutie fashion, he wasn't lighting the world on fire (49.2% Completion %, 1,563 yards passing, 7 TDs, 3 INTs, 1 rushing TD) in his 1st 7 games, he was winning.

 

There was no reason to really consider putting Brees on the field while he was winning.  Then there was a 9 game slide, and it's not exactly the unreasonable or odd approach for the coach to stick with the guy who got the team to a good record to start the season to let him get the team out of the tailspin.

 

Bledsoe was the starter in New England.  Brady was a 6th round draft pick.  It's questionable, maybe even doubtful that Brady would have had a HOF career if Drew Bledsoe weren't knocked out of the game, forcing Brady into the game.  Bledsoe hadn't been great for a while at that point, but it's not like Brady was the heir apparent.

 

 

Quote

 

So that's not just not true. But more, even if it had been completely true, it would still have been beside the point. By far the most important thing that will happen at the Ralph this year is Josh Allen's improvement or lack thereof. San Diego won five games that year. Flutie was a place-holder, an absolute footnote to the fact that the building blocks were starting to fall in place behind Brees' facemask. Same with New England who also won five games in Brady's first year. The fact that they had decent QB play that year means nothing to New England fans then or now. They were building for the future and that was by far the most important thing that went on that year is that building, what was happening inside Brady's head and the heads of a bunch of other players figuring out how Belichick's system was supposed to be run. 

 

Yeah, they had vet QBs. We have one too. And in the long run the veterans play meant nothing. What meant something was what was happening inside the minds of Brees and Brady. 

 

Rodgers certainly did have solid vet play ahead of him. Which again was far less important in Green Bay than what was happening inside Aaron Rodgers.

 

Same here. Unless McCarron is better than we all think - not impossible - he's likely to be what Flutie and Bledsoe were in those years. Which will mean pretty much nothing to how quickly Allen learns.

 

How good the QBs ahead of a young guy are don't mean much to his development unless it means he starts playing early. Which if it's too early might be a very bad thing.

 

Again, you're entire thought process centers on the idea (not the fact, but the idea) that time on the bench is a more valuable learning tool than time on the field.

 

Even though Flutie, Bledsoe and Favre may not have had fantastic seasons or won Super Bowls while the young guy was on the bench, you seem to believe that the Head Coaches had the long game in their heads--that it wasn't about winning games so much as developing the QBs.

 

Whether they end up being right or wrong, a Head Coach is almost certainly going to start the guy who gives the team the best chance to win NOW, because he doesn't know if he'll have the job in 2, 3 or 4 years when the young guy has finally developed into what all your good planning promised he'd be.

 

Maybe it's best to sit Allen for the year.  Maybe it's not.  I'm sure if Allen seems like he needs to sit, McDermott will sit him, but it'll be because McCarron is the better QB at that time, not because Allen still has some stuff he needs to learn, despite being the better QB than McCarron or Peterman.

 

That's fine if you believe it'd be best for Allen to ride the bench.  No problem.  It might be.  It might not be.

 

But based on history of high 1st round draft picks coming to a team with no clearly, or even semi-clearly established vet QB, the 1st round draft pick starts multiple games in his 1st year, if not all of them.

 

Right now Vegas has Allen's over/under odds of games started this year at 10.5 games--more than any of the other 4 drafted 1st round QBs.  I think that's about right... and right now, I'd go over.

 

Edited by transplantbillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Why Chris Simms thinks Buffalo Bills QB Josh Allen could be rookie of the year

https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2018/05/why_chris_simms_thinks_buffalo_bills_qb_josh_allen_could_be_rookie_of_the_year.amp

 

He's only had a few practices, but Buffalo Bills quarterback Josh Allen is already generating some rookie of the year buzz.

 

Vegas was first to get in on the action, giving Allen the third best odds to win Offensive Rookie of the Year at plus-900. Only Cleveland Browns quarterback Baker Mayfield and New York Giants running back Saquon Barkley, who were drafted first and second overall, have better odds.

 

and

 

"I might get some push back here," Simms said. "There's people who think he's going to be a bust. I have tremendous confidence in this kid's talent, and I think he is going to be the starter from day one. This is a Buffalo Bills football team that was a good football team that I think has a good support system around him. They should be able to run the football. They're going to be able to protect him. Weapons on the outside are not great. But I do think within that offense and some of the things we talked about, their defense being good, I think he can have a good enough year statistically and wins wise to where he's in this conversation for rookie of the year."

Edited by transplantbillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Why Chris Simms thinks Buffalo Bills QB Josh Allen could be rookie of the year

https://www.google.com/amp/s/articles.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2018/05/why_chris_simms_thinks_buffalo_bills_qb_josh_allen_could_be_rookie_of_the_year.amp

 

He's only had a few practices, but Buffalo Bills quarterback Josh Allen is already generating some rookie of the year buzz.

 

Vegas was first to get in on the action, giving Allen the third best odds to win Offensive Rookie of the Year at plus-900. Only Cleveland Browns quarterback Baker Mayfield and New York Giants running back Saquon Barkley, who were drafted first and second overall, have better odds.

 

and

 

"I might get some push back here," Simms said. "There's people who think he's going to be a bust. I have tremendous confidence in this kid's talent, and I think he is going to be the starter from day one. This is a Buffalo Bills football team that was a good football team that I think has a good support system around him. They should be able to run the football. They're going to be able to protect him. Weapons on the outside are not great. But I do think within that offense and some of the things we talked about, their defense being good, I think he can have a good enough year statistically and wins wise to where he's in this conversation for rookie of the year."

I like the optimism and I am very bullish on Allen's future, but has Simms taken into account the quality of the oline?  They'll have to at least attain mediocrity for his prediction to be credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had to bet, I think McCaron starts which I'm definitely okay with.  If Allen starts, that's even better.  I think this because I believe that the coaching staff (just a pure guess) would prefer Allen to sit and learn.  If he's tabbed to start, that means he's better than expected early on which is an absolutely great sign.  Also my excitement level would go up 10 fold.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong but they are setting this up for Allen to just take the whole thing over and sooner rather than later.  He seems to be a hard worker.  IF he works as hard or harder than Mccarron and Petterman I think once they start OTA's and everyone on the teams sees the difference it will be only a matter of time.  What the team will see?  Quicker release, better at throwing the ball outside the numbers, when he has to throw 30 yard lasers, escape-ability, and an overall physical presence neither Peterman or McCarron carry.  Irionic, Simms is out infront of this.  He believes Allen was the most pro ready than any of the Qbs coming out.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the new mantra seems to be "earn the right" this year. I do not think this staff is married to any particular philosophy, but if Allen starts it will be because he has earned it, not because they feel the pressure to start him. Whoever is the best, will play. We will have a better idea of who that is come TC and pre-season

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 4:23 AM, transplantbillsfan said:

 

The 3 best QBs in football at this moment sat on the bench, not in some altruistic effort to shield them from the horrors of the starting lineup, but because each one of them had a really solid vet QB in front of them in Bledsoe, Flutie and Favre. He'll, they might not have actually gotten any better sitting on the bench... you seem to think it's automatic that they did, but it's not. Maybe Brady and Brees have another Super Bowl each and Rodgers has 2 more if they all started from day 1. Maybe they don't. But the reason they sat had little to nothing to do with development (Brees might be the closest exception), but all to do with a significantly established pro bowl or borderline pro bowl caliber QB sitting in front of them.

 

We have AJ McCarron.

 

Maybe he proves to be obviously better than Allen as Bledsoe, Flutie, and Favre were at the time Brady, Brees and Rodgers sat on the bench, and if he does, he should start.

 

But if he doesn't, you start Allen, because he's better and gives the team a better chance to win.

I've watched good QB prospects become damaged goods over the years because of a teams poor judgement on whats considered an adequate supporting cast / coaching /system in place and functioning properly to provide everything a young prospect needs to succeed IMO. I'll use A Luck as an example because I believe under better circumstances Lucks career as a pro may have gone better both from an achievement and health standpoint in my humble opinion. Trent Edwards is another example that hits closer to home.

 

So with all due respect transplant its not just a question of who shows the most talent through training camp and preseason which can't duplicate regular season play, its a question of what is wise for the young QB prospect by way of development. 

Edited by Figster
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mat68 said:

I could be wrong but they are setting this up for Allen to just take the whole thing over and sooner rather than later.  He seems to be a hard worker.  IF he works as hard or harder than Mccarron and Petterman I think once they start OTA's and everyone on the teams sees the difference it will be only a matter of time.  What the team will see?  Quicker release, better at throwing the ball outside the numbers, when he has to throw 30 yard lasers, escape-ability, and an overall physical presence neither Peterman or McCarron carry.  Irionic, Simms is out infront of this.  He believes Allen was the most pro ready than any of the Qbs coming out.  

 

McCarron has one big shot left at being an NFL QB.  His contract is heavily "incentive laden".  I am willing to bet he works his butt off trying his hardest

to be the Bills starting QB this year.  He has started NFL games (including a win against the Ravens) and has been an understudy for 4 years.

He could fall flat on his face but I'm not going to be surprised to see a him as a competent QB during TC and Preseason.  AJ has to know this is his

last chance to show the NFL he can be a starter.

 

1 hour ago, Figster said:

I've watched good QB prospects become damaged goods over the years because of a teams poor judgement on whats considered an adequate supporting cast and coaching /systems in place and functioning properly to provide everything a young prospect needs to succeed IMO. I'll use A Luck as an example because I believe under better circumstances Lucks career as a pro may have gone better both from an achievement and health standpoint in my humble opinion. Trent Edwards is another example that hits closer to home.

 

So with all due respect transplant its not just a question of who shows the most talent through training camp and preseason which can't duplicate regular season play, its a question of what is wise for the young QB prospect by way of development

 Couldn't agree with you more Figster!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

I like the optimism and I am very bullish on Allen's future, but has Simms taken into account the quality of the oline?  They'll have to at least attain mediocrity for his prediction to be credible.

 

Well... our OL is part of the question mark with this team, obviously.  If the OL is absolutely porous and terrible, I'd prefer throwing McCarron to the wolves.  But if our OL is not great, but is at least "okay," I think Allen's the better option, anyway, considering his mobility.

 

Personally, I think our OL may actually improve from last year despite the departures.  Cordy Glenn is no loss because he never played last year, anyway.  Dawkins was pretty decent as a rookie, and will hopefully take another step.  Mills was a pleasant surprise last year... but we also signed another veteran T in free agency who might push him.  I'm not really that worried about our interior OL.  I'm actually excited to see what Groy can do and Bodine has plenty of NFL starting experience.  Plus hopefully John Miller makes a leap and the Guard we drafted in the 5th round gets comparisons to Richie.

 

Our OL won't be fantastic, but as long as they prove to be average and not terrible, I still think Allen is the better option under center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/14/2018 at 8:01 AM, ShadyBillsFan said:

the faster Josh learns the sooner Nate is gone?  

 

 

 

....Nate is a good PS candidate IMO......despite what the TBD haters say, let's see how the kid develops despite his MASSIVE salary......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Figster said:

I've watched good QB prospects become damaged goods over the years because of a teams poor judgement on whats considered an adequate supporting cast and coaching /systems in place and functioning properly to provide everything a young prospect needs to succeed IMO. I'll use A Luck as an example because I believe under better circumstances Lucks career as a pro may have gone better both from an achievement and health standpoint in my humble opinion. Trent Edwards is another example that hits closer to home.

 

So with all due respect transplant its not just a question of who shows the most talent through training camp and preseason which can't duplicate regular season play, its a question of what is wise for the young QB prospect by way of development. 

 

Well apparently then you're just in Thurman#1's court, saying that it's obviously better that Allen sits on the bench because that would obviously be better for his development...?

 

 

I disagree. It might be.  It might not be. 

 

Andrew Luck didn't have anyone around him on his team.  That's the responsibility of the GM.  It really has little to do with Luck being ready to start as a rookie, it has to do with the GM who didn't surround him with any talent and didn't protect him properly with a good OL.

 

Trent Edwards, I think, is a completely different case.  He got shell-shocked after Adrian Wilson knocked him out of that game against Arizona. 

 

 

The Bills have significantly more talent than the Colts had in 2012.  We have a really good stable of RBs, solid group of TEs, one very good WR and a bunch of unknowns who are still pretty promising, and our OL, while maybe the biggest question mark, I'd say is at least not horrible and might actually be significantly better than last year.

 

But aside from all of that, if Allen is clearly the best QB during the Summer with Training Camp and the preseason and all the vets on the team see that (which they obviously would) and McDermott still names McCarron, rather than Allen the starter... well...

tenor.gif?itemid=4138868

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Well apparently then you're just in Thurman#1's court, saying that it's obviously better that Allen sits on the bench because that would obviously be better for his development...?

 

 

I disagree. It might be.  It might not be. 

 

Andrew Luck didn't have anyone around him on his team.  That's the responsibility of the GM.  It really has little to do with Luck being ready to start as a rookie, it has to do with the GM who didn't surround him with any talent and didn't protect him properly with a good OL.

 

Trent Edwards, I think, is a completely different case.  He got shell-shocked after Adrian Wilson knocked him out of that game against Arizona. 

 

 

The Bills have significantly more talent than the Colts had in 2012.  We have a really good stable of RBs, solid group of TEs, one very good WR and a bunch of unknowns who are still pretty promising, and our OL, while maybe the biggest question mark, I'd say is at least not horrible and might actually be significantly better than last year.

 

But aside from all of that, if Allen is clearly the best QB during the Summer with Training Camp and the preseason and all the vets on the team see that (which they obviously would) and McDermott still names McCarron, rather than Allen the starter... well...

tenor.gif?itemid=4138868

 

 

 

Can you honestly say Buffalo is giving Allen a good supporting cast and system to play in before regular season begins because I don't think you can. Oline is a big question mark, something we can agree on.

 

You can't go back and do things over once you trash a young QB prospects confidence IMO.

 

We have a smart HC so I'm going to have faith in the process... 

Edited by Figster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Well apparently then you're just in Thurman#1's court, saying that it's obviously better that Allen sits on the bench because that would obviously be better for his development...?

 

 

I disagree. It might be.  It might not be. 

 

Andrew Luck didn't have anyone around him on his team.  That's the responsibility of the GM.  It really has little to do with Luck being ready to start as a rookie, it has to do with the GM who didn't surround him with any talent and didn't protect him properly with a good OL.

 

Trent Edwards, I think, is a completely different case.  He got shell-shocked after Adrian Wilson knocked him out of that game against Arizona. 

 

 

The Bills have significantly more talent than the Colts had in 2012.  We have a really good stable of RBs, solid group of TEs, one very good WR and a bunch of unknowns who are still pretty promising, and our OL, while maybe the biggest question mark, I'd say is at least not horrible and might actually be significantly better than last year.

 

But aside from all of that, if Allen is clearly the best QB during the Summer with Training Camp and the preseason and all the vets on the team see that (which they obviously would) and McDermott still names McCarron, rather than Allen the starter... well...

 

 

 

 

 

Transplant,  please do not try to compare Luck and Allen.  Andrew Luck was being groomed to play QB from birth, literally.

We all know you are in the "start Allen immediately" club.  That's cool, but all of your posts making your point is not going to change

the minds of some of us who think a little patience is OK. 

 

Josh Allen could "tear it up" in TC and Preseason and look better than any rookie QB in years, if that happens I might say start him day 1.

I really don't think that will happen and we will all have to wait to see the summer unfold.

 

No one can compare Andrew Luck and Josh Allen from this point in their respective careers and think it is the same. 

I'm looking forward to your talking points on starting Allen immediately just like the TT saying in Buffalo thread!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Figster said:

Can you honestly say Buffalo is giving Allen a good supporting cast and system to play in before regular season begins because I don't think you can. Oline is a big question mark, something we can agree on.

 

Can I honestly say that? No more than you can honestly say they aren't. 

 

You're talking like Beane drafted Josh Allen after spending the offseason not worrying about the rest of the team.

 

Shady and Ivory and Cadet is a good, maybe extremely good backfield... much better than last year simply by letting go of Tolbert.

 

Clay is a really good TE. O'leary I honestly think will be productive in the NFL for a long time. Logan Thomas has tons of potential for a TE.

 

Benjamin is at least a true #1 WR. McDermott I assume had plenty of input in last year's draft, so I'd say he still has confidence Jones can be a capable #2, but besides him there are players like Reilly and Streater who I'm excited to see along with the vet Kerley and some other players.  Our WR corps is already better than last year just with a healthy Benjamin.

 

As I said, the OL is the biggest question mark, but just because it's a question mark means it's automatically going to be worse so don't start the rookie. They might be better than last year. They might be pretty good.

 

1 hour ago, Figster said:

You can't go back and do things over once you trash a young QB prospects confidence IMO.

 

We have a smart HC so I'm going to have faith in the process... 

 

Will you still have faith in the process if Allen is named starting QB week 1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Can I honestly say that? No more than you can honestly say they aren't. 

 

You're talking like Beane drafted Josh Allen after spending the offseason not worrying about the rest of the team.

 

Shady and Ivory and Cadet is a good, maybe extremely good backfield... much better than last year simply by letting go of Tolbert.

 

Clay is a really good TE. O'leary I honestly think will be productive in the NFL for a long time. Logan Thomas has tons of potential for a TE.

 

Benjamin is at least a true #1 WR. McDermott I assume had plenty of input in last year's draft, so I'd say he still has confidence Jones can be a capable #2, but besides him there are players like Reilly and Streater who I'm excited to see along with the vet Kerley and some other players.  Our WR corps is already better than last year just with a healthy Benjamin.

 

As I said, the OL is the biggest question mark, but just because it's a question mark means it's automatically going to be worse so don't start the rookie. They might be better than last year. They might be pretty good.

 

 

Will you still have faith in the process if Allen is named starting QB week 1?

absolutely

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/14/2018 at 2:41 PM, transplantbillsfan said:

FWIW... Vegas sure thinks Allen will be starting a lot of games this year.

 

Over/Under for games started by Allen is more than any of the other rookie QBs at 10 1/2 games.

 

 

Huh...I’m a wait and see guy. I’d rather not rush it unless he clearly looks ready as judged by the staff, but I certainly would have guessed Darnold and Rosen would have been projected for more starts. 

 

Time will tell....

Edited by Augie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Huh...I’m a wait and see guy. I’d rather not rush it unless he clearly looks ready as judged by the staff, but I certainly would have guessed Darnold and Rosen would have been projected for more starts. 

 

Time will tell....

The highest odds for Allen is a reflection of the experience at the position each team has IMO.

 

McCarron is very limited in comparison when it comes to experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

Transplant,  please do not try to compare Luck and Allen.  Andrew Luck was being groomed to play QB from birth, literally.

We all know you are in the "start Allen immediately" club.  That's cool, but all of your posts making your point is not going to change

the minds of some of us who think a little patience is OK. 

 

Josh Allen could "tear it up" in TC and Preseason and look better than any rookie QB in years, if that happens I might say start him day 1.

I really don't think that will happen and we will all have to wait to see the summer unfold.

 

No one can compare Andrew Luck and Josh Allen from this point in their respective careers and think it is the same. 

I'm looking forward to your talking points on starting Allen immediately just like the TT saying in Buffalo thread!

 

 

Hey breh.... I'm not the one who brought Luck into this conversation, Figster did, I was responding to his point, so please put your jump to conclusions mat back in your closet.tenor.gif?itemid=8186848

Edited by transplantbillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×