Jump to content

Why the handling of the QBs wouldn't have changed anything


oldmanfan

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

Except of course drafting their guy for the future.

That's where the Illogic part comes in. I have no problem with Allen being picked or trading up to get him. I do have a problem with no vet mentor QB to teach him  being on staff in the summer. AJ McCarron was never going to be that mentor. If you were going to start him and that was your plan ready or not then they should have protected him with at least some competent O line or given him some weapons to relieve the immense pressure on his shoulders. They failed to do that which makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Livinginthepast said:

That's where the Illogic part comes in. I have no problem with Allen being picked or trading up to get him. I do have a problem with no vet mentor QB to teach him  being on staff in the summer. AJ McCarron was never going to be that mentor. If you were going to start him and that was your plan ready or not then they should have protected him with at least some competent O line or given him some weapons to relieve the immense pressure on his shoulders. They failed to do that which makes no sense.

I agree.  This must be the fiftieth time this week I've said they should have brough a veteran in when they traded McCarron.

The plan was McCarron would start and Allen watch.  But Peterman beat NcCarton out.

As for the O line and WR, they want to clear cap space and Richie going nuts hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ProcessTruster said:

the Jets bailed on him pretty quickly.  just saying.  must be something wrong there.

I think he was potential trade bait all along.

 

It was a win win for the jets:

 

If Darnold struggled in camp, then they keep probably Mccown, Teddy, and Darnold with teddy possibly starting depending on how he came back from his injury.

 

If Darnold looked good in camp, then trade Teddy and you still got a veteran backup in Mccown. Which is the situation they found themselves in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OPs third point about signing a vet when AJM was traded is a good one; that should have been done in pre-season.  I  agree that it probably would not have changed much since none of the guys available were any good.  The only game that may have had a different outcome was the last one vs Houston, so we'd be 3-3 now.  I'm leaning toward the Baltimore and Chargers games not changing since those were whole team loses, including the coaching staff not being prepared.

 

So Anderson starts this week.  Will that make a difference and guarantee a win vs Indy?  Who knows.  Anderson hasn't played in two years, I believe, and wasn't an elite QB by any means when he was actively playing.  At the very least, we won't have to see 4-5 picks thrown by Peterman.  This QB decision, IMO, just keeps McD from losing the locker room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Let's review this whole QB thing, and see if things would have actually changed much if some of the things fans wanted had actually happened.  

 

1.  We keep McCarron and have him start the first 6 games.  Two things would have happened.  One, our record is no better and maybe worse, based on his play in preseason. People say Peterman wasn't as good as he showed in preseason.  Does that mean the reciprocal was true, i.e. McCarron would have been better?  Doubt it.  

 

2. McCarron doesn't do well, so people would have been screaming that Allen should be playing.  So Allen would have been playing anyway.

  

Or:

 

3.  We sign a guy like Anderson when we traded McCarron.  That should have been done IMHO.  Would our record be different?  Doubtful but maybe the same.  Would people be screaming to start Allen?  Yes.

 

4.  We should have kept Taylor, or spent a ton of $$ on a FA QB.  A short term benefit but illogical when you knew you were taking a young guy high in round 1.

 

So really it boils down to this:  the only real difference we have between where we are this week and if we had signed a guy at the end of camp is the guy, Anderson, would have a few more weeks to prepare.  And Allen would be sitting this week as he is anyway, only with 4 fewer starts to date.  Would that have changed things appreciably?  Can't say for sure but I tend to doubt it.

  

And fans would be screaming either way

 

Here's what would have changed:  Derek Anderson would have been the second string quarterback, he would have come into the Texans game when Allen got hurt, and he wouldn't have thrown the interceptions.   The Bills likely would have won the game. 

 

People were complaining here for weeks that the Bills didn't have a mento for Allen and didn't have a backup.  I thought it was just whining, but they were right.  Peterman probably shouldn't be on the team at all, but in any case he shouldn't have been the backup.  That's bad decision making by McBeane.  

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

You are in fact proving you don't read.  I have said a number of times their mistake was not bringing in a guy when they traded McCarron.   Just emphasized it again above.

 

And  what do you argue here?  That they should have done exactly what I said they should have done.  You think it would have made a bigger difference then me.

 

Reading is fundamental.

so is not being a dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

Peterman probably shouldn't be on the team at all, but in any case he shouldn't have been the backup.  That's bad decision making by McBeane.  

 

I'm certain that if Peterman had been drafted by Rex, he would have already been gone.  Since he was drafted by McD himself, Peterman has had a long rope.  But one does have to wonder how close that rope is to Peterman being able to hang himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keeping Tir-od would have meant millions more available for free agents.   His 10 mil in dead cap plus the McCarron signing would have never happened adding even more $ back.  Money that could have been used on O lineman or receivers.   I think we would also have more wins with Ti-rod.  Josh could start the end games once/if we were eliminated but who knows with this improved D.  

 

Granted this would have shaken up the draft trade but we still could have got Josh and maybe Edmunds too.  Probably not Harrison though.

 

 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Here's what would have changed:  Derek Anderson would have been the second string quarterback, he would have come into the Texans game when Allen got hurt, and he wouldn't have thrown the interceptions.   The Bills likely would have won the game. 

 

People were complaining here for weeks that the Bills didn't have a mento for Allen and didn't have a backup.  I thought it was just whining, but they were right.  Peterman probably shouldn't be on the team at all, but in any case he shouldn't have been the backup.  That's bad decision making by McBeane.  

Yep.   Maybe 3-3 vs. 2-4. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day it was really not that hard to predict this

 

We went from a incombant  starter (say what you will about Tyrod.....he had reached his ceiling...he was too careful with the ball.....ALL of that.....but he brought stability and we lost that safety net when we traded him away......

 

The flaws of the offensive line were masked by Tyrod's abilities a bit...then you compound that with lose 3 veterans off the OL.....then you start a rook.....it was not that difficult to see that this might happen.

 

The train has left the station....the bills will not be good this year and we as fans need to grit our teeth and be patient about it.......reinforcements will be on their way the offseason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

Except of course drafting their guy for the future.

Who had a half dozen red flags against drafting him with a high pick. But then again, not surprising considering they fell for the “ fools gold” preseason by Nathan Peterman. Their ability to evaluate QB talent is suspect to say the least. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Got it. But yet everything I listed is better than the good ole AJ McCarron that they chose. 

 

We could have also Picked Chad Henne the guy that has helped Tannenhill, Bortles and Mahomes. 

 

But nope it was McCarron. 

 

But all good think that this position group wasnt botched. 

I gotta agree that mgt botched the veteran aquisition to bridge the gap between releasing TT and bringing on Josh Allen......

 

Its like Anderson actually should have been here the WHOLE time.......

 

They put too much faith in Peterman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

So they took a ( borderline ) playoff team from last year and made it measurably worse. That passes for progress ?

He said the Bills consistently suck.  They made the playoffs last year.  That's a main thing that has to happen to win a SB.

 

This year lost some linemen and have their rookie QB starting out.  Step back to take ten steps forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ProcessTruster said:

the Jets bailed on him pretty quickly.  just saying.  must be something wrong there.

 

Wrong. Sam Darnold is the future here. Once he proved he could handle starting they felt comfortable flipping Teddy for a draft pick but, he played well in preseason too. Saints were smart to ***** him up. Hes still meh tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...