Matt Barkley Coming to town

[BobbyC81]

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!

[liverpoolkev]

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

[GreggTX]

I just ordered my Derek Anderson jersey and look what happens !!! If that don't beat all.

[CommonCents]

Matt Barkley? Could the Bills win the Rose Bowl?

[billsintaiwan]

Brian Brohm

[Buffalo Barbarian]

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 !

 

 

[BuffAlone]

5 hours ago, BillsFan2313 said:

 

Lol. He is better than Peterman

That's not saying much...

[teef]

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

[The Process]

Darn I was hoping for Chris Weinkie

[Commish]

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?!?

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

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

[MrEpsYtown]

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. 

[BarleyNY]

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. 

[billsintaiwan]

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

[oldmanfan]

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.

 

 

[Big Turk]

At this point they might as well bring Santa Claus to town.

[BarleyNY]

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. 

[oldmanfan]

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?

[The Frankish Reich]

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

[boyst]

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

[oldmanfan]

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. 

[The Frankish Reich]

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.

[oldmanfan]

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,

[YoloinOhio]

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 October 31, 2018 by YoloinOhio

[BarleyNY]

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. 

[oldmanfan]

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.

[T master]

16 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

 

 

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 !! 

[YoloinOhio]

Someone asked about him earlier in the thread so here you go

 

 

[nucci]

we just bring in a new QB every week

[YoloinOhio]

1 minute ago, nucci said:

we just bring in a new QB every week

Injury related unfortunately. I guess we blame the OL.

[Soda Popinski]

We're down to the bottom of the dumpster, underneath a beef lo mein box infested with maggots we found another QB to dust off and try.    

 

Gonna need  a shower after this

[BillsMafia13]

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

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

 

 

 

We’ve signed QB Matt Barkley and re-signed P Colton Schmidt each to a one-year contract.

[BillsFan130]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/10/31/jaguars-will-add-landry-jones/

 

Why wouldn't the Bills get Jones? I would prefer him over Anderson and Barkley

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

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. 

[BarleyNY]

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. 

[BillsMafia13]

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?

[Kelly the Dog]

4 minutes ago, BillsMafia13 said:

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

I don't think management should give af what we think. But they should give af what they think. And what they think is scary af. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

4 hours ago, billsfan11 said:

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/10/31/jaguars-will-add-landry-jones/

 

Why wouldn't the Bills get Jones? I would prefer him over Anderson and Barkley

 

 

Only the Shadow Knows 

[26CornerBlitz]

Matt Barkley: "Preparing Like I'd be Playing" (2:50)

QB Matt Barkley talks about signing with the Bills, how he approaches his preparation and more.