BobbyC81 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 2 hours ago, John in Jax said: Did you know that "Frankenstein" was the surname of the doctor who created the "monster." Many people....like you, apparently....think that the green, tall, ugly monster with bolts sticking out of his neck & a flat top head, is named "Frankenstein." He is/was NOT. He is/was simply "the monster." *The more you know* OK, Sheldon Cooper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liverpoolkev Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Rico said: Yep. Could be worse, they could bring EJ back. the pegulas do love their hillbillies and their weak arms Edited October 31, 2018 by liverpoolkev spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreggTX Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 I just ordered my Derek Anderson jersey and look what happens !!! If that don't beat all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Matt Barkley? Could the Bills win the Rose Bowl? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsintaiwan Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Brian Brohm 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 8 hours ago, Reed83HOF said: Peter SchragerVerified account @PSchrags 1m1 minute ago More Free agent QB Matt Barkley is set to visit Buffalo tomorrow afternoon. Could sign this week and potentially be the Bills number 2 QB on Sunday. @gmfb Yikes !! 8 hours ago, BuffAlone said: Yikes Lol, me too ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffAlone Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 5 hours ago, BillsFan2313 said: Lol. He is better than Peterman That's not saying much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teef Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, John in Jax said: Did you know that "Frankenstein" was the surname of the doctor who created the "monster." Many people....like you, apparently....think that the green, tall, ugly monster with bolts sticking out of his neck & a flat top head, is named "Frankenstein." He is/was NOT. He is/was simply "the monster." *The more you know* No ***** professor. And every time the name Frankenstein is brought up, there’s always that one guy in the crowd that can’t wait to impart this knowledge on the crowd like they’re truly on point with the literature. Next time I’ll call it the monster of dr. Frankenstein if that makes you happy. Edited October 31, 2018 by teef 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Process Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Darn I was hoping for Chris Weinkie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commish Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Why does Brady never get injured like this - he's built like scarecrow, Lorax drilled him during the Pats game, and he jumped right up?!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgewaycynic2013 Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, Stenbar said: How bout that college football team qb room..LOL.. I think I'll play those numbers in New York's 'Take 5'. ? Edited October 31, 2018 by Ridgewaycynic2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrEpsYtown Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Roch-A-Bill said: Why does Brady never get injured like this - he's built like scarecrow, Lorax drilled him during the Pats game, and he jumped right up?!? He seems to be able to protect himself really well. He always knows when there is pressure coming and where it is coming from so he gets his body ready to take the hit. He never gets hit in the head or low...except that time he blew out his knee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 8 hours ago, oldmanfan said: How? Other than not bringing Anderson in earlier when they traded McCarron, how? They are down two guys that got hurt. So they have to bring a fourth guy in. The screw up was starting the regular season with only a rookie and Nathan Peterman at QB. Paying AJ McCarron $4M then jettisoning him for a 5th round pick and not immediately replacing him also qualifies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsintaiwan Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) If we sign him, our active qbs will 11 career TDs and 27 interceptions. This has to be historically significant. Worst qbs since dufek, mathison, kofler, ferragamo era. Though there was the Thad Lewis/Jeff tuel era. Edited October 31, 2018 by billsintaiwan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 14 minutes ago, BarleyNY said: The screw up was starting the regular season with only a rookie and Nathan Peterman at QB. Paying AJ McCarron $4M then jettisoning him for a 5th round pick and not immediately replacing him also qualifies. Which is exactly what I just said. Other than not having Anderson or someone else like him come in when they traded McCarron, what else exactly could have been done differently? I like everyone else assumed McCarron would be the starter, and Allen would sit behind him and lean until they decided to put him in. well, unfortunately McCarron did not pan out as expected; he did not play well in pre-season and Peterman did. So what exactly was the coaching staff supposed to do, just ignore what went on during practices and in pre-season games? Just assume that McCarron would magically straighten out when the regular season started? So Peterman got the call and the biggest issue we've had with this entire QB thing is that Peterman for whatever reason throws up on himself when the real games start. So then Allen gets the call, just like every other rookie drafted this past year other than Jackson has done. And Allen as expected had ups and downs. So, again, yes they should have brought in a vet like Anderson maybe when they brought McCarron in (although reports are they tried to get Anderson in and he didn't want to sign then). But ask yourself this: would it have really changed anything? Would a guy like Anderson (or let's throw out other names: Sanchez, Barkley) really, honestly have changed the course of what went on this season? Would our record be that much better with any journeyman QB in there? Would it have forestalled getting Allen in there? Highly doubtful. The offense is in a bad way right now, not because we should have signed journeyman X over journeyman Y in March. It's because we have had our rookie QB hurt, and we've had to go with backups. Even with Allen our offense was going to be problematic because that's what happens with rookie QBs. And when you now have to go out and find a fourth QB to back up your 3rd QB because of injuries it gets really bad. So really, looking at all this you can say they should have signed a guy when they traded McCarron. Fine. You can say Peterman never should have started if you want to ignore his excellent pre-season. Fine too. But it doesn't make those arguments correct, and it doesn't mean our season miraculously improve. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 At this point they might as well bring Santa Claus to town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 27 minutes ago, oldmanfan said: Which is exactly what I just said. Other than not having Anderson or someone else like him come in when they traded McCarron, what else exactly could have been done differently? I like everyone else assumed McCarron would be the starter, and Allen would sit behind him and lean until they decided to put him in. well, unfortunately McCarron did not pan out as expected; he did not play well in pre-season and Peterman did. So what exactly was the coaching staff supposed to do, just ignore what went on during practices and in pre-season games? Just assume that McCarron would magically straighten out when the regular season started? So Peterman got the call and the biggest issue we've had with this entire QB thing is that Peterman for whatever reason throws up on himself when the real games start. So then Allen gets the call, just like every other rookie drafted this past year other than Jackson has done. And Allen as expected had ups and downs. So, again, yes they should have brought in a vet like Anderson maybe when they brought McCarron in (although reports are they tried to get Anderson in and he didn't want to sign then). But ask yourself this: would it have really changed anything? Would a guy like Anderson (or let's throw out other names: Sanchez, Barkley) really, honestly have changed the course of what went on this season? Would our record be that much better with any journeyman QB in there? Would it have forestalled getting Allen in there? Highly doubtful. The offense is in a bad way right now, not because we should have signed journeyman X over journeyman Y in March. It's because we have had our rookie QB hurt, and we've had to go with backups. Even with Allen our offense was going to be problematic because that's what happens with rookie QBs. And when you now have to go out and find a fourth QB to back up your 3rd QB because of injuries it gets really bad. So really, looking at all this you can say they should have signed a guy when they traded McCarron. Fine. You can say Peterman never should have started if you want to ignore his excellent pre-season. Fine too. But it doesn't make those arguments correct, and it doesn't mean our season miraculously improve. Everyone saw Peterman’s performance last season. No preseason performance should’ve made this staff comfortable with it just being him and Allen. As for McCarron, he was injured in the preseason and didn’t get a lot of work. He would have known the offense and would have been more serviceable than a street FA QB brought in off the beach. The difference may have been between a below average or even poor offense and the historically poor offense we’ve seen. It might have been the difference of 2 or 3 wins. It also could’ve kept Allen on the bench this season, which would’ve been best for him. It’s not a mistake you can gloss over. There are other issues too. This regime went all out to get their QB and defensive cornerstone in the first round. I do not have issue with that, but they used the off-season to otherwise build the defense and really hung the offense out to dry. Trading Glenn away on top of losing Cogs and Wood with no roster additions capable of starting. All on a line where the other two positions already needed replaced. No help of consequence at WR either. Those issues compounded each other. What free-agent quarterback wanted to play behind outline with those wide receivers? They may not ohave expected to lose Cogs and Wood, but they didn’t alter their plan once they did. Everything that has happened with this offense was completely expected by people paying attention. Ditto the impact that this crappy offense has had on and otherwise quality defense. They’ve worn down in games and are doing so over the season. There was definitely a lot of work to be done, but it didn’t have to be nearly this bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 1 minute ago, BarleyNY said: Everyone saw Peterman’s performance last season. No preseason performance should’ve made this staff comfortable with it just being him and Allen. As for McCarron, he was injured in the preseason and didn’t get a lot of work. He would have known the offense and would have been more serviceable than a street FA QB brought in off the beach. The difference may have been between a below average or even poor offense and the historically poor offense we’ve seen. It might have been the difference of 2 or 3 wins. It also could’ve kept Allen on the bench this season, which would’ve been best for him. It’s not a mistake you can gloss over. There are other issues too. This regime went all out to get their QB and defensive cornerstone in the first round. I do not have issue with that, but they used the off-season to otherwise build the defense and really hung the offense out to dry. Trading Glenn away on top of losing Cogs and Wood with no roster additions capable of starting. All on a line where the other two positions already needed replaced. No help of consequence at WR either. Those issues compounded each other. What free-agent quarterback wanted to play behind outline with those wide receivers? They may not ohave expected to lose Cogs and Wood, but they didn’t alter their plan once they did. Everything that has happened with this offense was completely expected by people paying attention. Ditto the impact that this crappy offense has had on and otherwise quality defense. They’ve worn down in games and are doing so over the season. There was definitely a lot of work to be done, but it didn’t have to be nearly this bad. Well, some of this is just not true. They did address Wood for example by getting Bodine. Trading Glenn? You ignore he was hurt all of last year with a big cap number, and that trading him allowed them to move up to get Allen. Plus Dawkins was already there ready to take over. Maybe you could have moved Glenn inside, true. And I agree with the WR stuff, although again that was partially due to their cap space philosophy. And they did try to get guys like John Brown. I think your assumption that McCarron would have gotten us 2-3 more wins is wildly optimistic. And I say that as one who assumed McCarron would be that kind of guy. He simply showed little if anything in pre-season. Why do people say that the team should have ignored Peterman's good preseason and known he would have been bad., and if the same breath assume McCarron would have been good in the regular season even though he was bad in preseason? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, oldmanfan said: Which is exactly what I just said. Other than not having Anderson or someone else like him come in when they traded McCarron, what else exactly could have been done differently? I like everyone else assumed McCarron would be the starter, and Allen would sit behind him and lean until they decided to put him in. well, unfortunately McCarron did not pan out as expected; he did not play well in pre-season and Peterman did. So what exactly was the coaching staff supposed to do, just ignore what went on during practices and in pre-season games? Just assume that McCarron would magically straighten out when the regular season started? Yes. That's exactly what they should have done. Because McCarron has a track record (limited, but still a track record) of being an adequate NFL QB. You don't magically assume that he's turned into trash overnight because he had a couple bad performances in preseason games playing behind a patched-together offensive line. You assume he will revert to the mean ... an adequate NFL QB, kind of the 33rd best QB in football type of guy that he's been. Any coach/GM should understand the term "small sample size." On the other hand, you don't assume that Nathan Peterman will be a better QB because he's played well in a few preseason games, mostly against second stringers. This was a rookie mistake by McDermott, plain and simple. And then Beane and McDermott compounded the mistake by not immediately signing another veteran QB as soon as Allen went down. I don't hate the new regime. In fact, I believe in "the process" if, as I understand it, that means shedding bad contracts, getting younger, and becoming a real playoff competitor in a mult-year cycle starting perhaps as early as next year (more likely 2020). But there's no excuse for this season, which is neither a tank job nor an attempt to remain basically competitive while rebuilding. It's idiocy. Edited October 31, 2018 by The Frankish Reich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 14 hours ago, st pete gogolak said: Hilarious. What a s***show. Happiest person to hear this news? Colin Kaepernick. Additional evidence for his collusion case against the NFL. Asking price is a huge deal. And methinks there is a quiet policy around Kaepernick that his agent doesn't want to find him work and he isn't seeking it. Shirely, he knows he can get more value in his life being the martyr than being a QB. 13 hours ago, JPP said: I will say it again for you.....COLLUSION......no team will go near him with a ten foot pole....he will not be signed with us or with any other team anytime soon or in the near or later future........but regardless yes he would also be an improvement with the dumpster fire we have at QB now..... How does any of that equal collusion? You displayed no evidence in the usage of the word, and in fact did the opposite. You specifically stated no team would. Each team is an individual enterprise vs the league. Your argument would have looked much better using the league. There is no plot against a crappy QB wanting millions to only be a distraction and SJWNPC. 10 hours ago, TAinLA said: ..and if things get really bad we can put in Logan Thomas or quite possibly Terrelle Pryor -when signed - Championship! That's what I had expected with Pryor being an option at QB if we get so thin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts