Jump to content

Matt Barkley Coming to town


Reed83HOF

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

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.

So just ignore what they see on the field and in practice.  That makes no sense.  And I was fully behind McCarron coming here.

 

I do agree about bringing a guy in when he got traded and have said so repeatedly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

So just ignore what they see on the field and in practice.  That makes no sense.  And I was fully behind McCarron coming here.

 

I do agree about bringing a guy in when he got traded and have said so repeatedly. 

Look ... I go down to Arizona every spring and watch a bunch of spring training games. And every year there's several established pitchers who just look horrible. Sometimes they're really good pitchers. Japanese phenom Shohei Otani was awful this spring. Sometimes they're 4th starter types - the baseball equivalent to McCarron. And every spring some young kids look fantastic, mostly throwing all fastballs as hitters try to get their timing down. But unless the veteran with a track record has something wrong physically (velocity way, way down, etc.), you don't base your roster decisions on what you see in spring. And most often those players revert to their career averages. Otani was excellent by the time the season started. Most young kids throwing all fastballs find out that hitters catch up with them in April. All coaches say something like, "It's an open competition," but they don't really mean that they ignore a track record and base who gets a starting job solely on what they see in practice and in a few preseason games.  Unless they're named McDermott.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Look ... I go down to Arizona every spring and watch a bunch of spring training games. And every year there's several established pitchers who just look horrible. Sometimes they're really good pitchers. Japanese phenom Shohei Otani was awful this spring. Sometimes they're 4th starter types - the baseball equivalent to McCarron. And every spring some young kids look fantastic, mostly throwing all fastballs as hitters try to get their timing down. But unless the veteran with a track record has something wrong physically (velocity way, way down, etc.), you don't base your roster decisions on what you see in spring. And most often those players revert to their career averages. Otani was excellent by the time the season started. Most young kids throwing all fastballs find out that hitters catch up with them in April. All coaches say something like, "It's an open competition," but they don't really mean that they ignore a track record and base who gets a starting job solely on what they see in practice and in a few preseason games.  Unless they're named McDermott.

I think Allen played better than McCarron, not just Peterman.  And when they saw that and realized McCarron might be watching, McCarron wanted no part of that.  So they got an asset for him.  And at that point yes they should have signed a vet who could have been a mentor type,

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

44 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Look ... I go down to Arizona every spring and watch a bunch of spring training games. And every year there's several established pitchers who just look horrible. Sometimes they're really good pitchers. Japanese phenom Shohei Otani was awful this spring. Sometimes they're 4th starter types - the baseball equivalent to McCarron. And every spring some young kids look fantastic, mostly throwing all fastballs as hitters try to get their timing down. But unless the veteran with a track record has something wrong physically (velocity way, way down, etc.), you don't base your roster decisions on what you see in spring. And most often those players revert to their career averages. Otani was excellent by the time the season started. Most young kids throwing all fastballs find out that hitters catch up with them in April. All coaches say something like, "It's an open competition," but they don't really mean that they ignore a track record and base who gets a starting job solely on what they see in practice and in a few preseason games.  Unless they're named McDermott.

McCarron isn’t “established” and doesn’t have a “track record”... he had to prove himself and he didn’t. There was a reason he was still available late in FA and signed for peanuts.

Edited by YoloinOhio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

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?

 

Bodine has been a pleasant surprise. He graded horribly last season but has been solid here. Not as good as Wood, but he hasn’t been a problem. I’ll give you that. But that’s it. 

 

Trading Glenn has hurt this team more than helped it. It was part of moving up for Allen but trading him wasn’t the only option. His injury last season wasn’t something that would impact him this season and he’s played well for Cincy. And you ignore the lack of talent anywhere else on the OL.  That wasn’t addressed at all.

 

We agree something more should’ve been done at WR. The Bills would’ve needed to overpay and they could have despite their cap situation. Signing bonuses with minimum first year salaries are common and minimize first year cap hits. They could’ve done the same at QB. They were in negotiations with better QBs than McCarron and didn’t step up. I agree that McCarron might not have been worth 2-3 more wins - we won’t ever know what he would have done - but he wasn’t the only option.  A serviceable bridge QB certainly could have been.  That’s what I said. 

 

As for Peterman’s preseason, it certainly should have been part of any decision but so should his performance in the regular season. Please explain to me how you go into the season with him and a rookie who played in one of the worst college offenses in the FBS last season. Please note that I’m not ripping on Allen just pointing out how raw he is. Even McCarron would’ve helped keep him on the bench which is where he should have been this season instead of playing with a poor receiving corps and behind an awful line. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BarleyNY said:

 

Bodine has been a pleasant surprise. He graded horribly last season but has been solid here. Not as good as Wood, but he hasn’t been a problem. I’ll give you that. But that’s it. 

 

Trading Glenn has hurt this team more than helped it. It was part of moving up for Allen but trading him wasn’t the only option. His injury last season wasn’t something that would impact him this season and he’s played well for Cincy. And you ignore the lack of talent anywhere else on the OL.  That wasn’t addressed at all.

 

We agree something more should’ve been done at WR. The Bills would’ve needed to overpay and they could have despite their cap situation. Signing bonuses with minimum first year salaries are common and minimize first year cap hits. They could’ve done the same at QB. They were in negotiations with better QBs than McCarron and didn’t step up. I agree that McCarron might not have been worth 2-3 more wins - we won’t ever know what he would have done - but he wasn’t the only option.  A serviceable bridge QB certainly could have been.  That’s what I said. 

 

As for Peterman’s preseason, it certainly should have been part of any decision but so should his performance in the regular season. Please explain to me how you go into the season with him and a rookie who played in one of the worst college offenses in the FBS last season. Please note that I’m not ripping on Allen just pointing out how raw he is. Even McCarron would’ve helped keep him on the bench which is where he should have been this season instead of playing with a poor receiving corps and behind an awful line. 

Good discussion.  When looking at the Glenn thing, you have to look at the whole picture.  They knew they had to move up to get the guy they wanted, and there were only so many teams to have discussion with to do so.  As it turns out Cincy was the one, and then you have to take into consideration their needs when discussing trades.  They needed an LT, we had one that was hurt pretty much all last year plus we had a young guy to take that spot.  So that made sense.  Kind of a win-win, they got a player they needed, we got the position to take the QB we needed.  As far as the rest of the line, they did bring in Bodine to play C when Wood retires.  Amy not be the best guy out there, but I don't think there were many options at C in free agency.  And Richie went nuts; could not have predicted that.

 

I explained going into the regular season with two young QBs; they shouldn't have.  We are just disagreeing on who the third guy should have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Reed83HOF said:

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

 

 

Yet another blunder at the QB position due to earlier blunders its kind of like the plumber credo S**T roles down hill ! 

 

But it doesn't stop until it hits the bottom !! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 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.....

Signing Kaep is the 1 thing that would make the fan base hate McBeane more than it already does.  That would be a bigger mistake than starting Peterman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The HUGE mistake was keeping peterman over McCarron. If you were going to start Nate you could’ve just as easily promised to starte AJ.  And you cannot convince me that McCarron would’ve been unhappy with that! He’d have gotten his chance to show he could do it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

Good discussion.  When looking at the Glenn thing, you have to look at the whole picture.  They knew they had to move up to get the guy they wanted, and there were only so many teams to have discussion with to do so.  As it turns out Cincy was the one, and then you have to take into consideration their needs when discussing trades.  They needed an LT, we had one that was hurt pretty much all last year plus we had a young guy to take that spot.  So that made sense.  Kind of a win-win, they got a player they needed, we got the position to take the QB we needed.  As far as the rest of the line, they did bring in Bodine to play C when Wood retires.  Amy not be the best guy out there, but I don't think there were many options at C in free agency.  And Richie went nuts; could not have predicted that.

 

I explained going into the regular season with two young QBs; they shouldn't have.  We are just disagreeing on who the third guy should have been.

 

I just don’t find it defensible that they weakened an offensive line that was already so very poor (and with no depth at all) AND then expected either a second year late round pick who performed horribly last season and/or a raw rookie to perform behind them. The s**t show and injuries were expected. That’s how you get a historically poor offense.

 

I do like what the defense is becoming, but the offense has been totally mismanaged. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

McDermott, with Beane, decided that a player with no arm was viable in the league as a backup. He's been the worst player in league history to date because he cannot throw NFL passes. That has been shown time and time again. Today they are considering bringing in another player just like Peterman, whose death knell as a player in this league is that he is a turnover machine because he has a rag arm. He's just like Peterman and has been released by numerous teams because he's just like Peterman, and his 8-18 TD/INT is indicative.

 

In fact, he was a 4th round pick for exactly the same reasons as Peterman was a 5th. Both were known for being smart, accurate, quick release throwers but weren't highly regarded because they had rag arms.

 

McD and Beane should have known first hand that this kind of player cannot succeed. They have seen it with their own eyes three or four times. And yet they still have kept Nate on the team. And now when they need to get an emergency guy in here who may have to play right away behind Matt Barkley 2.0, what do they do? They bring in Matt Barkley 1.0.

 

That's scary for our future from our decision makers. Whether Barkley plays a down or not. 

Does management think we're stupid, think they are making the right moves, or just not give af what we think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...