Keeping three quarterbacks

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Depends on your definition of short term. He's probably on a one year trial basis (not contract). If at the end of the year the team in consultation with Josh thinks it was very helpful he probably gets another year. if they don't, AND a decent veteran backup is available who is willing to play behind a young starter then they sign that guy in FA on the cheap.

Short is 1 year maybe 2.  

By year 3 JA had better gotten a grasp on playing QB in the big league. 

1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

Another year or so is definitely possible if he's willing and nothing else better/more convenient shows up. Next year they have a lot of holes to fill and if back-up QB can be removed/delayed from that list all the better.

Agree ? 

Or close enough 

 

 

[Albany,n.y.]

Does anyone know if Anderson can hold on FGs? 

[1st Ammendment NoMas]

1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

IMHO     I don't care,  the more the merrier.    JMO but DA is a very short term answer.  

People can Hate on Nate all they want.  DA is a mentor, a guy with experience who can help the young kids along.  

 

(there's a reason McD has kept Nate on the roster - your guess is as good as mine)

 

 

I'm sure much has been said in the DA has been signed thread.  

 

DA might not be as short term as you think. He is 35.  He may have 3-5 yrs left, especially if he is not absorbing punishment like Brady and Brees. He could be a Fitz for the Bills.

[YoloinOhio]

18 minutes ago, Albany,n.y. said:

Does anyone know if Anderson can hold on FGs? 

Poyer is actually the backup holder fwiw 

[COTC]

Peterman needs to be cut NOW!! no excuses. 

 

Get this loser off the team.

 

no more special favors. 

 

 

Edited October 9, 2018 by COTC

[Chandler#81]

McBeane believes in their Draft picks -to a fault. Frankly, many seem to be paying off in the 2year. Peterman is the exception. He baffled everyone in preseason and had the best showing. But when the lights went up, he shrunk for the 3rd straight time. I expect him gone as soon as DA is up to speed and the next big injury hits, needing a new replacement.

[The Wiz]

If Peterman is PS eligible then I can see him getting cut and put on there once DA is up to speed.  Don't really see many teams licking their chops for him.

 

If DA can mentor Allen enough to get things going this year then I can see Peterman as the backup or 3rd next year.

Edited October 9, 2018 by The Wiz

[Matty the Dustmop]

Everyone including McBeane and McClappy loves them some Peterman.

[ProcessYaDigg]

This signing is a clear indication that Nate is gone.  For now, Derek Anderson is a great signing.  He's been around a lot of clubs and has a ton of knowledge to groom Josh Allen. 

[Kirby Jackson]

I would have cut Peterman in February but what do I know.

 

[quinnearlysghost88]

3 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Why is DA has a short term answer?   

1. Whats he done lately?
2. What was he doing all of September? 
3. He is 35.
4. He has a 20-27 record over 12 NFL seasons, and won just a pair of starts in 2014 in Cam's place.

5. Bills sign QB Derek Anderson to mentor rookie Josh Allen   https://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/article219722760.html  BY JOHN WAWROW

Your first 4 don't matter. We don't need him to actually play football (hopefully). Just a mentor. He's basically another coach, and if he had to actually go in, he'd be serviceable. But, again, Josh seems durable (like Cam), and just needs a sounding board. you can't come off the field after a tough drive and get input from nathan (0.0 rating) peterman. 

[Kirby Jackson]

Nate is a scrub. He is still on this team so that McBeane avoids egg on their faces for starting him. He was a scrub. He is a scrub. He will be a scrub. 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

3 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

This thread is hopefully only for the discussion of its title.

 

I am going to assume, not matter what we hear out of McD's mouth, that he and Beane are going to waive Nate in a week or two and then sign him to the PS. I understand waiting a week or more to get Anderson up to speed on the offense but I wouldn't do it myself. Nor would I sign him to the PS but that's a different topic.

 

Keeping three QBs, when Peterman is one of them makes zero sense to me, and hopefully you. There is no way a team is going to pick up Peterman up and place them on their 53. If we want him on our PS to run the scout team and whatever other twisted reason for the bromance we can have him.

 

There is also no way that we are going to have three QBs active on gameday. Zero.

 

So either Nate or Derek will be in civvies and not eligible.  If they somehow come to the unimaginable conclusion that Nate is going to be that guy, and Anderson will be ineligible, why wouldn't you just hire a smarter recently retired or unsigned ex-NFL QB as an assistant QB coach for half the money and have him stand on the sidelines with Josh, parceling out his morsels of wisdom instead of Anderson?

 

If Josh gets hurt and Nate is forced into the game we can all pretty much change the channel or leave the sports bar or stadium. If he is going to be inactive, why the hell have him on the 53-man roster when you could put another WR or S or CB or ST guy on there? It makes no sense.

 

The only reason to keep three QBs active in today's NFL, especially with the new PS rules, is because you have a potential stud young guy as a #3 and you would lose him if he is waived.

 

We don't.

 

 

 

That's my thinking too, Peterman will stay on the roster until Anderson knows the offense and/or some short term 2 to 3 week injuries hit forcing the Bills to make a move then he likely will get cut.  Can't see the Bills having three QB's active either on game day roster.

[The Wiz]

47 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I would have cut Peterman in February but what do I know.

 

You apparently don't know how to eat popcorn

 

[Fadingpain]

4 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

This thread is hopefully only for the discussion of its title.

 

I am going to assume, not matter what we hear out of McD's mouth, that he and Beane are going to waive Nate in a week or two and then sign him to the PS. I understand waiting a week or more to get Anderson up to speed on the offense but I wouldn't do it myself. Nor would I sign him to the PS but that's a different topic.

 

Keeping three QBs, when Peterman is one of them makes zero sense to me, and hopefully you. There is no way a team is going to pick up Peterman up and place them on their 53. If we want him on our PS to run the scout team and whatever other twisted reason for the bromance we can have him.

 

There is also no way that we are going to have three QBs active on gameday. Zero.

 

So either Nate or Derek will be in civvies and not eligible.  If they somehow come to the unimaginable conclusion that Nate is going to be that guy, and Anderson will be ineligible, why wouldn't you just hire a smarter recently retired or unsigned ex-NFL QB as an assistant QB coach for half the money and have him stand on the sidelines with Josh, parceling out his morsels of wisdom instead of Anderson?

 

If Josh gets hurt and Nate is forced into the game we can all pretty much change the channel or leave the sports bar or stadium. If he is going to be inactive, why the hell have him on the 53-man roster when you could put another WR or S or CB or ST guy on there? It makes no sense.

 

The only reason to keep three QBs active in today's NFL, especially with the new PS rules, is because you have a potential stud young guy as a #3 and you would lose him if he is waived.

 

We don't.

 

 

The topic of 3 Quarterbacks was discussed at length in the middle of Hour 3 of Schopp and Bulldog today.

 

Schopp thought keeping Nate as a 3rd QB was nuts.

 

Bulldog said something like "we cut our most experienced WR the day before Allen's first start b/c we needed an extra DT b/c it was going to be hot out.  If that is how you are going to handle your roster, game to game, the luxury of a 3rd QB who has failed so spectacularly is absurd." 

 

https://wgr550.radio.com/media/audio-channel/10-09-hr-3-schopp-bulldog

 

 

[Kelly the Dog]

3 minutes ago, The Wiz said:

You apparently don't know how to eat popcorn

 

You know how bad burnt popcorn is? NP is worse than burnt popcorn. 

Just now, Fadingpain said:

The topic of 3 Quarterbacks was discussed at length in the middle of Hour 3 of Schopp and Bulldog today.

 

Schopp thought keeping Nate as a 3rd QB was nuts.

 

Bulldog said something like "we cut our most experienced WR the day before Allen's first start b/c we needed an extra DT b/c it was going to be hot out.  If that is how you are going to handle your roster, game to game, the luxury of a 3rd QB who has failed so spectacularly is absurd." 

 

https://wgr550.radio.com/media/audio-channel/10-09-hr-3-schopp-bulldog

 

 

I have yet to see anyone come up with even a half-assed reason for it. It's insane. 

[BringBackOrton]

4 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

This thread is hopefully only for the discussion of its title.

 

I am going to assume, not matter what we hear out of McD's mouth, that he and Beane are going to waive Nate in a week or two and then sign him to the PS. I understand waiting a week or more to get Anderson up to speed on the offense but I wouldn't do it myself. Nor would I sign him to the PS but that's a different topic.

 

Keeping three QBs, when Peterman is one of them makes zero sense to me, and hopefully you. There is no way a team is going to pick up Peterman up and place them on their 53. If we want him on our PS to run the scout team and whatever other twisted reason for the bromance we can have him.

 

There is also no way that we are going to have three QBs active on gameday. Zero.

 

So either Nate or Derek will be in civvies and not eligible.  If they somehow come to the unimaginable conclusion that Nate is going to be that guy, and Anderson will be ineligible, why wouldn't you just hire a smarter recently retired or unsigned ex-NFL QB as an assistant QB coach for half the money and have him stand on the sidelines with Josh, parceling out his morsels of wisdom instead of Anderson?

 

If Josh gets hurt and Nate is forced into the game we can all pretty much change the channel or leave the sports bar or stadium. If he is going to be inactive, why the hell have him on the 53-man roster when you could put another WR or S or CB or ST guy on there? It makes no sense.

 

The only reason to keep three QBs active in today's NFL, especially with the new PS rules, is because you have a potential stud young guy as a #3 and you would lose him if he is waived.

 

We don't.

 

 

Didn't we have three QBs active on game day last year?

[Augie]

37 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Nate is a scrub. He is still on this team so that McBeane avoids egg on their faces for starting him. He was a scrub. He is a scrub. He will be a scrub. 

 

So, are you saying you don’t think he’s a candidate for the Wall of Fame? All this vague talk leaves me confused....  

 

Congrats to Derek for finding a few million more to stick in the retirement fund to (hopefully) just hold a clipboard and play mentor. Well, done, sir! 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, BringBackOrton said:

Didn't we have three QBs active on game day last year?

We only had 2 on our roster

[Kelly the Dog]

4 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Didn't we have three QBs active on game day last year?

Who?