Was there a solid plan on the QB after Tyrod left?

[Another Fan]

I’m hoping any discussions on this are for not brining Taylor back here.  Had no problem with the move even today.  I wonder though if there was a solid plan in place going forward after replacing him.  The whole acquiring and then trading AJ struck me as just being very wishy washy and didn’t make sense.  

 

Not against Allen but I often wonder if that was a last second decision contrary to what OBD says.  

[Johnny Hammersticks]

Yes, the plan is to develop Josh Allen.  That’s what you have to do if you take a QB top 10.  Tyrod Taylor would have cost way too much to keep around as a back up.  I honestly think they thought they had more in McCarron.  They obviously were wrong.  It happens.

 

It’s the Josh Allen show now.

[Royale with Cheese]

I think it was AJ McCarron but he never put the nail in the coffin in the competition.  He allowed Peterman to stay in.

Peterman has burned McDermott twice now.  We should have kept AJM.

 

Now it's Allen.  Might be earlier than they wanted but you simply can't trot out Peterman again.  

[oldmanfan]

The plan was to draft a guy.  They did.  And then bring a veteran presence in to help.  They did with McCarron.  But then McCarron didn't play well and Peterman did in preseason, so they went with Peterman.  Who laid an egg.

 

In hindsight they could have opted for a guy like Matt Moore vs. McCarron.  And they just might given Peterman's performance.  But Peterman worked his tail off all off season and showed well in preseason games.  So he got his shot.

 

some talk about losing the locker room; you could if you'd have ignored what Peterman showed up till yesterday.  But he then stunk.  

[Kirby Jackson]

I always thought Tyrod was a decent QB but had no objection to the move. I think tht there was a plan to clear the way for Allen. They didn’t want a functioning vet like a McCown muddying the waters. In hindsight they may have been better off getting a guy like that if they weren’t going to address the OL or pass catchers. 

[5 Wide]

My concern is that there is no vet presence in the room.  Not saying a vet to challenge to start but a vet who has been in the league to impart knowledge on the youngsters.  Daboll and coaches can dissect tape and coach them up, but there is value in having someone around who has seen it from the pocket or been through some seasons in the league at the position.

[Wiz]

Tyrod was not the answer at qb.  He showed his limitations yesterday and very shortly there will be calls in Cleveland to start Mayfield. 

[Seanbillsfan2206]

Why is this even a thread? The plan was to trade up and draft a QB. 

 

/thread

[jahnyc]

I thought I read that they were interested in McCown (Jets back-up QB and starter last year) and only turned to AJ when there were no other viable options.  Signing McCown would have made sense as part of the overall plan.

[Bill from NYC]

6 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

The plan was to draft a guy.  They did.  And then bring a veteran presence in to help.  They did with McCarron.  But then McCarron didn't play well and Peterman did in preseason, so they went with Peterman.  Who laid an egg.

 

In hindsight they could have opted for a guy like Matt Moore vs. McCarron.  And they just might given Peterman's performance.  But Peterman worked his tail off all off season and showed well in preseason games.  So he got his shot.

 

some talk about losing the locker room; you could if you'd have ignored what Peterman showed up till yesterday.  But he then stunk.  

A professional football coach is supposed to know that although he isn't Tom Brady, McCarron is better than Peterman, who seems like a nice guy but might be the worst qb in the history of the NFL.

[xsoldier54]

16 minutes ago, Another Fan said:

I’m hoping any discussions on this are for not brining Taylor back here.  Had no problem with the move even today.  I wonder though if there was a solid plan in place going forward after replacing him.  The whole acquiring and then trading AJ struck me as just being very wishy washy and didn’t make sense.  

 

Not against Allen but I often wonder if that was a last second decision contrary to what OBD says.  

They got McCarron as insurance.  No guarantee they were going to get their guy in the draft.  My guess is that if he didn't get hurt, he would have started yesterday.  He got hurt, fell behind and they decided to cut bait and get something for him.  I think the plan after that was to start Peterman and if he struggled, bring in Allen, just as they did yesterday.  I just don't think they believed Peterman would struggle as badly as he did yesterday and they were hoping to get a couple of games out of him before bringing in Allen.  I believe Allen is the starter moving forward now.  Just my two cents worth.

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

A professional football coach is supposed to know that although he isn't Tom Brady, McCarron is better than Peterman, who seems like a nice guy but might be the worst qb in the history of the NFL.

You go by the data bin front of you.

[Buftex]

I liked Tyrod, and would not have been upset had they kept him.  Though, I certainly understand why they did.  I think they had a solid enough plan to replace him, until they traded McCarron.  Then it kind of went out the window.  McDermott and Beane have to take some blame for this.  McCarron may have very well sucked too, but this marks the second time in a year that they badly mis-read Petermans' ability to play at the NFL level.  I don't believe they are intentionally setting out to tank the season, but that was some leap of faith, trading away McCarron, your "vetran" backup, for a guy who had one (very bad) start under his belt. 

[IronyAbounds]

Frankly I don't care who starts at QB, no one will be successful with the dog crap OL and dog crap receivers on the Bills. Tom Effing Brady would look like crap too. It does disturb me that McDermott praises Peterman as a "faith-based young man" as though Peterman's religious views have anything to do with him being an NFL QB. I understand the need to have good character guys on the team, but if a player's religion or lack thereof comes into play when selecting players or determining who starts, then we can look forward to years of suckitude from the Bills under McDermott and Beane. Hell, even an atheist is going to scream JESUS CHRIST when those opposing lineman are barreling down their throats after getting past the porous OL.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

21 minutes ago, Another Fan said:

I’m hoping any discussions on this are for not brining Taylor back here.  Had no problem with the move even today.  I wonder though if there was a solid plan in place going forward after replacing him.  The whole acquiring and then trading AJ struck me as just being very wishy washy and didn’t make sense.  

 

Not against Allen but I often wonder if that was a last second decision contrary to what OBD says.  

 

At the point where they traded Taylor, the Bills appeared to be trying to scrape up cap space. 

 

So I had thought they were going to make a play for one of the FA QB - Cousins by first choice,  or Keenum would have been my choices, but I thought they might be interested in Bradford also.  Cousins made it clear he was not interested in B'lo at any price, and Keenum and Bradford both priced themselves above what Beane was willing to pay (if there was interest).

 

IMHO once the Bills put their eggs in the "draft a QB high" basket, they should have gone hard for a vet FA QB who has shown he can play.  Having a choice between McCarron and Peterman as vets behind a rookie regarded as one of the highest ceiling/lowest floor/needs development guys in the draft strikes me as a Plan where you Lose your Hat.

 

And any plan where you lose your hat is a Very Bad Plan.

[Ray Finkel]

15 minutes ago, Wiz said:

Tyrod was not the answer at qb.  He showed his limitations yesterday and very shortly there will be calls in Cleveland to start Mayfield. 

The calls have already started.

[BuffaloBillyG]

Here's the issue I had with how things wotked out.

 

They moved Taylor with no one but Peterman on the roster at QB. Then, possibly because of the dead cap situation sat back in free agency and took whatever QB was there after all the top guys were gone. Thete was a reported intrest in Bradford, but I believe it was more to get a feel of the market value than the player.

 

The the draft hits and they take (aside from Lamar Jackson) the QB that reportedly needee the most time to develop. Leaving us a raw rookie, AJM and Peterman...somehow still hanging out. 

 

If They were going to go with Allen, love it. Like the pick and think he will be a fine QB. However, in my opinion It just doesn't seem well thought out.

[ngbills]

28 minutes ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:

Yes, the plan is to develop Josh Allen.  That’s what you have to do if you take a QB top 10.  Tyrod Taylor would have cost way too much to keep around as a back up.  I honestly think they thought they had more in McCarron.  They obviously were wrong.  It happens.

 

It’s the Josh Allen show now.

Playing Peterman was virtually unprecedented. Since 1971, only one QB with less starting experience had started the opener over a rookie who had been drafted in the top 10. That was Doug Pederson, who started ahead of Donovan McNabb. But at least Pederson had five years and 21 games of NFL experience under his belt.

[Johnny Hammersticks]

2 minutes ago, ngbills said:

Playing Peterman was virtually unprecedented. Since 1971, only one QB with less starting experience had started the opener over a rookie who had been drafted in the top 10. That was Doug Pederson, who started ahead of Donovan McNabb. But at least Pederson had five years and 21 games of NFL experience under his belt.

 

Playing Peterman was the only choice for McD, IMO.  If he had played reasonably well on Sunday, McD would have looked good.  Now that Peterman sucked, as we all knew would happen, he has no excuse but to start the rookie.  Allen starting this season was inevitable.  Ideally, we would have liked him to sit and learn for at least 4-5 games, but that didn’t happen.  As I stated in an earlier post, I honestly think they felt McCarron was going to be that bridge QB.

 

Conversely, if McD had started Allen in game one and Allen struggled, fans and media would be clamoring for Peterman.  What a mess that would/could have been.

[apuszczalowski]

1 minute ago, Ray Finkel said:

The calls have already started.

They started the second he was drafted 1st overall.

 

And obviously the plan was to draft a QB, that wasnt the original point here, the point was did they have a plan outside of that.

 

From what is being said, it appears Allen was always the guy they wanted and knew he would need to sit and develop, he wasnt a day 1 starter. The plan appeared to be dump Taylor for picks and then rummage around the scrap heap for a place holder option until Allen is ready. They didnt want to pay for quality, and McCown went back to the Jets, so they grabbed AJ cause he was cheap and may make them look good if he works out

 

That came back to bite them when he missed a bit of Training Camp because of injury and then they thought Peterman was good enough. Now they are stuck with a guy who has yet to finish a start and had to be mercy pulled from the game cause he was so bad, and have to rush in the guy they didnt want to rush and have no other options outside of signing someone off the street

[BobChalmers]

28 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

A professional football coach is supposed to know that although he isn't Tom Brady, McCarron is better than Peterman, who seems like a nice guy but might be the worst qb in the history of the NFL.

 

Based on what is McCarron better than Peterman?  NP outplayed AJM all preseason and camp.  That they were stuck with that choice as all they had to "protect" Allen is bad, I guess, assuming you think Allen needs this psychological protection. (I Have mixed feelings myself).  I was hoping for Cousins and then Bradford, but as others have stated, they cost too much and...

 

this 2018 season has two (always planned) priorities - eat the almost $60M in dead cap, and develop your offensive (Allen) and defensive (Edmunds) futures of the franchise.

 

"The process" has us well on the way to both (assuming Allen doesn't get messed up playing with this crap offense).

Edited September 10, 2018 by BobChalmers

[All_Pro_Bills]

I had no issue with the trade of Tyrod.  He was a true professional during his time with the Bills and while he had his limitations he usually performed up to his potential.  Unfortunately, that potential as a passer was limited as his passing stats showed  I think trading McCarron was a tactical mistake and relying on Peterman and Allen compounds that mistake.  Keeping McCarron and naming him the starter on opening day, rather than trading him, would have made more sense to me.  First, he's the only guy on the roster that has any successful experience as an NFL QB although that is only, what, 4 starts?  And second, playing for the Bengals his familiarity with the Ravens gave him a mental edge over the other two QB's.  Bringing in a seasoned veteran as some other posters have suggested might have been a better approach.

 

As things worked out, the Bills had a plan at the draft to come away with one of the four potential franchise QB's but not much of a plan to build a support system around him by addressing the offensive line and the receiving group.  Losing Wood and Incognito didn't help.  Thinking about the Beane interviews I've heard and mentally playing back his answers to questions and comments leads me to conclude the plan for year 2 is to strip things down to the wall studs and rebuild through the draft (with a likely top 3 pick) and maybe close to $100M in cap space next spring.   So  Tank 2.0  

[BobChalmers]

6 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

  Thinking about the Beane interviews I've heard and mentally playing back his answers to questions and comments leads me to conclude the plan for year 2 is to strip things down to the wall studs and rebuild through the draft (with a likely top 3 pick) and maybe close to $100M in cap space next spring.   So  Tank 2.0  

 

Sure - and to continue your construction analogy,  Josh Allen and Tremaine Edmunds are the FOUNDATION.  

 

P.S. we don't get Allen and Edmunds w/o trading Tyrod and Cordy!!

Edited September 10, 2018 by BobChalmers

[Hapless Bills Fan]

38 minutes ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:

Yes, the plan is to develop Josh Allen.  That’s what you have to do if you take a QB top 10.  Tyrod Taylor would have cost way too much to keep around as a back up.  I honestly think they thought they had more in McCarron.  They obviously were wrong.  It happens.

 

It’s the Josh Allen show now.

 

You know, that's a funny thing, that "Taylor would cost too much" idea.

 

Somehow Josh McCown and his $10M contract don't cost the Jets too much as a backup/insurance plan for Sam Darnold.

Sam Bradford and his 1 eyar, $20M contract  don't cost the Cardinals too much as an insurance plan for Rosen not being ready to start.

Tyrod Taylor and his $16M contract don't cost the Browns too much as an insurance plan for Mayfield not being ready to start.

 

But taking a $7.6M dead cap hit to ship Taylor out of town, then $4M dead cap to sign and trade for McCarron, a guy who has never started, leaving the Bills with choices at QB of the least ready/biggest project of the top draftees or Nate Peterman somehow seems like a good plan, and taking a flyer on Corey Coleman and his $3.6M guaranteed salary is OK.

 

What if the Bills just kept Taylor as a guy who could start while they were developing Allen, and paid the few million more to, you know, have a capable player instead of no players and $15.2M of dead money on the books for Taylor, McCarron, and Coleman? 

 

Yes, developing the QB is what you have to do when you take a QB in the top-10, but you don't have to do it the way the Bills are doing it - with no choices in the race but a dark-horse 5th round guy, a career backup, and your precious needs-development high pick.

 

 

[BillsFan130]

14 minutes ago, BobChalmers said:

 

Based on what is McCarron better than Peterman?  NP outplayed AJM all preseason and camp.  That they were stuck with that choice as all they had to "protect" Allen is bad, I guess, assuming you think Allen needs this psychological protection. (I Have mixed feelings myself).  I was hoping for Cousins and then Bradford, but as others have stated, they cost too much and...

 

this 2018 season has two (always planned) priorities - eat the almost $60M in dead cap, and develop your offensive (Allen) and defensive (Edmunds) futures of the franchise.

 

"The process" has us well on the way to both (assuming Allen doesn't get messed up playing with this crap offense).

Based on Peterman has the worst passer rating in NFL history maybe? Pre season means nothing as that was just confirmed yesterday .

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

26 minutes ago, ngbills said:

Playing Peterman was virtually unprecedented. Since 1971, only one QB with less starting experience had started the opener over a rookie who had been drafted in the top 10. That was Doug Pederson, who started ahead of Donovan McNabb. But at least Pederson had five years and 21 games of NFL experience under his belt.

 

That's actually kind of interesting, because by all reports Pederson, for all his aw-shucks country boy demeanor, was quite the student of the game and stuck around the league 14 years for that reason.

[Johnny Hammersticks]

11 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You know, that's a funny thing, that "Taylor would cost too much" idea.

 

Somehow Josh McCown and his $10M contract don't cost the Jets too much as a backup/insurance plan for Sam Darnold.

Sam Bradford and his 1 eyar, $20M contract  don't cost the Cardinals too much as an insurance plan for Rosen not being ready to start.

Tyrod Taylor and his $16M contract don't cost the Browns too much as an insurance plan for Mayfield not being ready to start.

 

But taking a $7.6M dead cap hit to ship Taylor out of town, then $4M dead cap to sign and trade for McCarron, a guy who has never started, leaving the Bills with choices at QB of the least ready/biggest project of the top draftees or Nate Peterman somehow seems like a good plan, and taking a flyer on Corey Coleman and his $3.6M guaranteed salary is OK.

 

What if the Bills just kept Taylor as a guy who could start while they were developing Allen, and paid the few million more to, you know, have a capable player instead of no players and $15.2M of dead money on the books for Taylor, McCarron, and Coleman? 

 

Yes, developing the QB is what you have to do when you take a QB in the top-10, but you don't have to do it the way the Bills are doing it - with no choices in the race but a dark-horse 5th round guy, a career backup, and your precious needs-development high pick.

 

 

 

Hindsight is 20/20.  Again, I suspect when they acquired McCarron they thought they were getting much more of a bridge QB.  Sometimes you gamble and lose.

[All_Pro_Bills]

22 minutes ago, BobChalmers said:

 

Sure - and to continue your construction analogy,  Josh Allen and Tremaine Edmunds are the FOUNDATION.  

 

P.S. we don't get Allen and Edmunds w/o trading Tyrod and Cordy!!

And if getting to a string of 11 or 12 win seasons means suffering through a 3-13 season this year rather than muddling through at 6 to 8 wins forever then where to I sign up?

[BobChalmers]

16 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:

Based on Peterman has the worst passer rating in NFL history maybe? Pre season means nothing as that was just confirmed yesterday .

 

Neither McCarron nor Peterman has enough of a sample set to make any stats meaningful.  They are NFL coaches and they used their eyes.

 

When McCarron plays well for the Raiders or whoever they dump him off to, (albeit probably with a better supporting cast than the Bills) and assuming he ever sees the field again in the NFL then your point might mean a lot more.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:

Hindsight is 20/20.  Again, I suspect when they acquired McCarron they thought they were getting much more of a bridge QB.  Sometimes you gamble and lose.

 

My point is that all the other teams that drafted young QB high, took gambles with much smaller odds - keeping or acquiring guys who actually have a season or more track record of playing QB capably in the NFL.   Only the Bills thought gambling a young QB's development path on an untested backup was a Good Plan.

 

The other justification for the Bills gamble, that Taylor "cost too much" to keep as a possible #2, also does not hold water against the size of the dead cap hit we've accrued on QBs/WR and the salaries other teams are willing to pay for this role.

 

 

[Batman1876]

I just went over to the browns board, their Tyrod conversation there sounds very familiar. Half think he stinks and Mayfield should start and half blame the system and other players around him. Even with Tyrod we lose yesterday if Browns fans are fed up after 1 game and a tie how bad would things be here after 3 years and a loss. 

[BobChalmers]

59 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

At the point where they traded Taylor, the Bills appeared to be trying to scrape up cap space. 

 

So I had thought they were going to make a play for one of the FA QB - Cousins by first choice,  or Keenum would have been my choices, but I thought they might be interested in Bradford also.  Cousins made it clear he was not interested in B'lo at any price, and Keenum and Bradford both priced themselves above what Beane was willing to pay (if there was interest).

 

IMHO once the Bills put their eggs in the "draft a QB high" basket, they should have gone hard for a vet FA QB who has shown he can play.  Having a choice between McCarron and Peterman as vets behind a rookie regarded as one of the highest ceiling/lowest floor/needs development guys in the draft strikes me as a Plan where you Lose your Hat.

 

And any plan where you lose your hat is a Very Bad Plan.

 

- They also got the first pick in the 3rd round for Taylor - which (I believe?) they used to get Edmunds (the best player on the team yesterday).  That was amazing value for a guy who won't be a starting QB in the league ever again once the Browns start Mayfield.

- They got McCarron as a FA and turned him in to another 5th round pick.

 

Not apples to apples at all - can't just compare salaries.

Edited September 10, 2018 by BobChalmers

[Ray Finkel]

44 minutes ago, apuszczalowski said:

They started the second he was drafted 1st overall.

 

And obviously the plan was to draft a QB, that wasnt the original point here, the point was did they have a plan outside of that.

 

From what is being said, it appears Allen was always the guy they wanted and knew he would need to sit and develop, he wasnt a day 1 starter. The plan appeared to be dump Taylor for picks and then rummage around the scrap heap for a place holder option until Allen is ready. They didnt want to pay for quality, and McCown went back to the Jets, so they grabbed AJ cause he was cheap and may make them look good if he works out

 

That came back to bite them when he missed a bit of Training Camp because of injury and then they thought Peterman was good enough. Now they are stuck with a guy who has yet to finish a start and had to be mercy pulled from the game cause he was so bad, and have to rush in the guy they didnt want to rush and have no other options outside of signing someone off the street

The calls for starting Mayfield.

[Johnny Hammersticks]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

My point is that all the other teams that drafted young QB high, took gambles with much smaller odds - keeping or acquiring guys who actually have a season or more track record of playing QB capably in the NFL. 

 

The justification for the Bills gamble, that Taylor "cost too much" to keep as a possible #2, also does not hold water against the size of the dead cap hit we've accrued on QBs/WR and the salaries other teams are willing to pay for this role.

 

 

 

Fair point.  Again, I feel like they had their bridge QB in McCarron, but that didn’t pan out as they suspected.  Either way, in the long run, I feel like Josh Allen is going to benefit from being thrown to the wolves.  He seems to have the mental fortitude to weather the highs and lows.

[John from Riverside]

I think AJM was always the plan until Allen was ready to start.......

 

The best laid plans.........

[BobChalmers]

Just now, Johnny Hammersticks said:

 

Fair point.  Again, I feel like they had their bridge QB in McCarron, but that didn’t pan out as they suspected.  Either way, in the long run, I feel like Josh Allen is going to benefit from being thrown to the wolves.  He seems to have the mental fortitude to weather the highs and lows.

 

I thought it was a fair point until I remembered they got the 65th pick in the draft for Tyrod.  That was a steal.

2 minutes ago, Ray Finkel said:

The calls for starting Mayfield.

 

Well seriously, who doesn't start the number one overall pick?

[Buddo]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Hammersticks said:

 

Hindsight is 20/20.  Again, I suspect when they acquired McCarron they thought they were getting much more of a bridge QB.  Sometimes you gamble and lose.

 

The gamble and lose,was in shipping out McCarron, who has shown he can play in the NFL, and keeping Peterman, who hasn't.

 

Reminds me of what happened when we got rid of Jackson and kept Kolb, which was again a similar situation, and we kept the wrong guy. Albeit different GMs and HCs.

 

Tbh, my problem with the situation, isn't so much the starting of Peterman, either last year, when Tyrod's play was at a low, or yesterday, when they clearly decided he had won the QB competition. It's much more that there isn't a fall back option under the circumstances we find ourselves in, when Peterman has proven wanting when the live bullets are flying, as Gailey would have said.

 

I think it's also fair to say that the 'plan' for Allen, has also had to be chucked out of the window, due to the mistake of not keeping McCarron, either over Peterman, or alongside him.

[Johnny Hammersticks]

1 minute ago, Buddo said:

 

The gamble and lose,was in shipping out McCarron, who has shown he can play in the NFL, and keeping Peterman, who hasn't.

 

Reminds me of what happened when we got rid of Jackson and kept Kolb, which was again a similar situation, and we kept the wrong guy. Albeit different GMs and HCs.

 

Tbh, my problem with the situation, isn't so much the starting of Peterman, either last year, when Tyrod's play was at a low, or yesterday, when they clearly decided he had won the QB competition. It's much more that there isn't a fall back option under the circumstances we find ourselves in, when Peterman has proven wanting when the live bullets are flying, as Gailey would have said.

 

I think it's also fair to say that the 'plan' for Allen, has also had to be chucked out of the window, due to the mistake of not keeping McCarron, either over Peterman, or alongside him.

 

Not sure if you paid attention in the preseason, but McCarron was flat out beat by Nate Peterman.  He sucked.  I don’t know why so many people are now bashing Beane for shipping off AJM...as if he would have faired any better yesterday.  

[SouthNYfan]

36 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:

Based on Peterman has the worst passer rating in NFL history maybe? Pre season means nothing as that was just confirmed yesterday .

 

 

 

Based on preseason many of us said the oline, dline, dbacks outside of poyer/hyde/tre and WRs sucked

Guess what?

The preseason was right.

[BillsFan130]

13 minutes ago, BobChalmers said:

 

Neither McCarron nor Peterman has enough of a sample set to make any stats meaningful.  They are NFL coaches and they used their eyes.

 

When McCarron plays well for the Raiders or whoever they dump him off to, (albeit probably with a better supporting cast than the Bills) and assuming he ever sees the field again in the NFL then your point might mean a lot more.

McCarron already has proved way more than Peterman even in such a small sample size .

 

2 and 1 in 3 starts with over a 90 rating with 6 TDS and 2 picks.

 

I will not even dig out the Peterman stats as they are literally as bad as you get in the history in the NFL.

 

While Mccaron is mediocre at best, the two aren’t comparable. McDermott completely butchered the situation by keeping Peterman over Mccaron. He’s now been burnt twice by his boy, Nate.

1 minute ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Based on preseason many of us said the oline, dline, dbacks outside of poyer/hyde/tre and WRs sucked

Guess what?

The preseason was right.

I meant for QB. Teams don’t game plan against QBs in pre season