Here we go again - McDermott's choice of Peterman defines his coaching tenure

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, vorpma said:

Here we go again with the same old temper tantrum and tired post!

 

I think "tired" is the right word here. It's almost like every post here is about firing someone, gutting the entire staff, starting all over from the top down, and finding new owners.

 

1 hour ago, PearlHowardman said:

It has everything to do with the incompetent owners Terry & Kim Pegula.

 

Yep. Tired is the right word.

 

 

[Thurman#1]

15 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

And the majority knew last year......

 

 

Nah, the majority had that opinion. With the very incomplete info we fans get compared to coaches.

 

And it was a reasonable opinion then and now but not a fact.

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

6 minutes ago, nucci said:

Tired of hearing this excuse....if it was never about winning then they are in the wrong business.....

 

Lol.  That attitude got us years of 7 - 9 football, no franchise QB, and a 17 year playoff drought.  Sure, man.  You got it.  Wrong business. 

[Billsfan1972]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Oh, yeah, who can believe he isn't playing Terrelle Pryor at QB instead.

 

Yeah, yeah, he defines his legacy with that choice and his choice of Bojorquez. And his choice of Humber as his original ILB. Oh, yeah, all of these totally define a tenure that is in all likelihood very very far from completion.

 

Totally.

 

 

 

 

Missing the point......  Peterman vs. LAC 2017, no mentor/veteran with NFL experience and some success to help JA, a offense torn apart under his tenure, OC's that are so behind in how offenses are played and having Peterman compete again a rookie and a no one for the starting job is all on McDermott....

 

You have to be incompetent not to know that your QB is the most important player.

 

Let's look at Jax.  They have Bortles a high first round pick, not fifth who is terrible, but at least he has these games where he appears to be a great QB.  I won't say I feel bad for Marrone, but very hard to to assess the QB possition when your QB is schizophrenic..... 

[Thurman#1]

2 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

I think "tired" is the right word here. It's almost like every post here is about firing someone, gutting the entire staff, starting all over from the top down, and finding new owners.

 

 

Yep. Tired is the right word.

 

 

 

 

Good post.

[nucci]

3 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Lol.  That attitude got us years of 7 - 9 football, no franchise QB, and a 17 year playoff drought.  Sure, man.  You got it.  Wrong business. 

well, would have been nice if they told us there were no plans for winning. we could have taken the season off like they have. We were 9-7  and in the playoffs last season. Most teams build off that.

[Mark80]

Wait, wait, wait, wait. 

 

So, you say the staff lost you in 2017 pre-season.  That is BEFORE they even played a single real game.  You didn't even give them 1 game before they lost you.  Give me a break, man.

 

Then, you say that a backup QB who they drafted in the 5th round with absolutely no intention of him ever becoming more than a backup QB is what defines McDermott's coaching tenure.  My lord, you are off the rails my friend.

 

The start against the Chargers in 2017 for Peterman was the right move, but a bad result.  Taylor had 56 yards passing the week before.  Fifty-freaking-six!!!  It was so obvious that the team was not going to do anything substantial with him as QB.  Sure, he didn't throw a ton of picks, but he didn't get points either.  Punts are pretty close to the same thing as picks and we punted all the time.  As soon as team consistently spied Tyrod, he was ineffective.  Period.  Peterman looked good in practice (as he always does, same with pre-season) so they figured they would see what he could do.  He failed miserably, they went back to Tyrod and we still made the playoffs.  How did playing Peterman for that 1 half have any impact on our season at all?  It didn't.  Not one bit.

 

Then this season he was the clear winner in the QB battle from all accounts.  He deserved to start week 1.  Again, he failed.  Then we brought in our 7th overall pick to take over pretty much immediately.  Peterman would never have started again barring injury.

 

You say keep Watkins.  For what?  One season of having no QB to throw him the ball and have any significant impact.  Were we going to the SB if we kept Watkins?  Hell no.  Maybe we still made the playoffs, maybe not.  I think we would have had the same season and then lost him in FA.  No way in hell we were paying him $16M a year.  No f'n way.

 

And finally, McDermott doesn't make the personnel decisions.  Beane does.  That's what GMs jobs are, not HCs.  Sure, the HC has input, the Beane makes the calls.  Such a clueless post and take.  Sorry man.  But it is.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Mark80

[nucci]

9 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I get that you're tired of it. But it's still true.

 

You edited the quote. He said, "this year was never about winning." Not that winning isn't the most important thing.

 

It doesn't show you're in the wrong business to value long-term consistent winning over the short-term, one season's worth of winning.

I get that but I feel they tore it down too much and it will take longer to fix then maybe they think.  

[uticaclub]

Tanking breeds losing. How many coaches started a tank and got to enjoy the championship?

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

1 minute ago, nucci said:

well, would have been nice if they told us there were no plans for winning. we could have taken the season off like they have. We were 9-7  and in the playoffs last season. Most teams build off that.

 

Do playoff teams that think they can build off of that get rid of their starting QB and then draft a rookie that needs a redshirt year?  

[Thurman#1]

3 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:

 

Lol.  That attitude got us years of 7 - 9 football, no franchise QB, and a 17 year playoff drought.  Sure, man.  You got it.  Wrong business. 

 

 

Nah. The last 17 years were a series of GMs and coaches refusing to rebuild. "Sure, we were 7-9 last year but that was only bad luck. Next year we'll definitely do it. We don't need a rebuild. We'll just reload and reload and reload and reload." That's what's made the last 17 years so awful.

 

Consciously choosing the hell of a rebuild is pretty much the opposite of what was done for nearly all of the last 17 years.

[Mark80]

34 minutes ago, nucci said:

most teams build off of the playoffs...we tore it down and back to the bottom of the league

 

Smart management understands when making the playoffs was a fluke, when we really didn't have the foundation to be consistently good or competitive for a SB title and takes action to get to that point.  Smart management does not overreact and overplay their hand when they know they don't have anything.  They stick to the much needed plan.

[Thurman#1]

4 minutes ago, nucci said:

I get that but I feel they tore it down too much and it will take longer to fix then maybe they think.  

 

 

You may be right. In a couple of years we'll know. Depends mostly on Josh Allen and how he develops, IMHO.

[Billsfan1972]

1 minute ago, Mark80 said:

Wait, wait, wait, wait. 

 

So, you say the staff lost you in 2017 pre-season.  That is BEFORE they even played a single real game.  You didn't even give them 1 game before they lost you.  Give me a break, man.

 

Then, you say that a backup QB who they drafted in the 5th round with absolutely no intention of him ever becoming more than a backup QB is what defines McDermott's coaching tenure.  My lord, you are off the rails my friend.

 

The start against the Chargers in 2017 for Peterman was the right move, but a bad result.  Taylor had 56 yards passing the week before.  Fifty-freaking-six!!!  It was so obvious that the team was not going to do anything substantial with him as QB.  Sure, he didn't throw a ton of picks, but he didn't get points either.  Punts are pretty close to the same thing as picks and we punted all the time.  As soon as team consistently spied Tyrod, he was ineffective.  Period.  Peterman looked good in practice (as he always does, same with pre-season) so they figured they would see what he could do.  He failed miserably, they went back to Tyrod and we still made the playoffs.  How did playing Peterman for that 1 half have any impact on our season at all?  It didn't.  Not one bit.

 

Then this season he was the clear winner in the QB battle from all accounts.  He deserved to start week 1.  Again, he failed.  Then we brought in our 7th overall pick to take over pretty much immediately.  Peterman would never have started again barring injury.

 

You say keep Watkins.  For what?  One season of having no QB to throw him the ball and have any significant impact.  Were we going to the SB if we kept Watkins?  Hell no.  Maybe we still made the playoffs, maybe not.  I think we would have had the same season and then lost him in FA.  No way in hell we were paying him $16M a year.  No f'n way.

 

Such a clueless post and take.  Sorry man.  But it is.

Yes the decisions on the offensive side of the ball were terrible.  Not going to argue every point, but Peterman starting vs. LAC was wrong and no amount of you explaining it was right makes it so.....  The results speaks for itself (as does Balt & Houston).

 

Oh the 2017 pre-season was so bad after the Watkins trade that Boldin just left camp......  Didn't that say anything about the team on that side of the ball?  

 

Watkins being traded for Nothing showed me that the coaching staff had no respect for the Offense and this has been borne out.   

[JoshAllenHasBigHands]

2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Nah. The last 17 years were a series of GMs and coaches refusing to rebuild. "Sure, we were 7-9 last year but that was only bad luck. Next year we'll definitely do it. We don't need a rebuild. We'll just reload and reload and reload and reload." That's what's made the last 17 years so awful.

 

Consciously choosing the hell of a rebuild is pretty much the opposite of what was done for nearly all of the last 17 years.

 

Yeah, I was being sarcastic.  I was a total "lets build off last year" guy.  I've realized that is wrong or at least crazy hard to do .  or at least it is without a franchise QB.  I'm all in on the rebuild now.  Lets do it the right way. 

 

McDermott got us to the playoffs.  I am super comfortable with him doing the rebuild.  

[Billsfan1972]

3 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Nah. The last 17 years were a series of GMs and coaches refusing to rebuild. "Sure, we were 7-9 last year but that was only bad luck. Next year we'll definitely do it. We don't need a rebuild. We'll just reload and reload and reload and reload." That's what's made the last 17 years so awful.

 

Consciously choosing the hell of a rebuild is pretty much the opposite of what was done for nearly all of the last 17 years.

Name me a team that has rebuilt successfully under these circumstances and decisions?  I only look at the dumpster fire that is Cleveland and wonder how long we should patiently wait.......

[Thurman#1]

13 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Missing the point......  Peterman vs. LAC 2017, no mentor/veteran with NFL experience and some success to help JA, a offense torn apart under his tenure, OC's that are so behind in how offenses are played and having Peterman compete again a rookie and a no one for the starting job is all on McDermott....

 

You have to be incompetent not to know that your QB is the most important player.

 

Let's look at Jax.  They have Bortles a high first round pick, not fifth who is terrible, but at least he has these games where he appears to be a great QB.  I won't say I feel bad for Marrone, but very hard to to assess the QB possition when your QB is schizophrenic..... 

 

 

I think it's you who's missing the point.

 

How could choosing Peterman define McDermott when he has no other choice. It's a dumb statement.

 

If the statement had been different, something about bringing in a different QB at some point, my answer would have been different. It's simply a dumb headline. And your post here is wacky and non-responsive.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Mark80]

1 minute ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Yes the decisions on the offensive side of the ball were terrible.  Not going to argue every point, but Peterman starting vs. LAC was wrong and no amount of you explaining it was right makes it so.....  The results speaks for itself (as does Balt & Houston).

 

Oh the 2017 pre-season was so bad after the Watkins trade that Boldin just left camp......  Didn't that say anything about the team on that side of the ball?  

 

Watkins being traded for Nothing showed me that the coaching staff had no respect for the Offense and this has been borne out.   

 

Where did Boldin play again last year?  Oh yeah, no where.  He retired.  He was 37 and was done.  Had nothing to do with our team.  He could have gone anywhere and played.  He didn't, he retired.  Our FO has shown they are willing to cut guys or trade them for basically nothing if they want (Vontae, and Richie as examples). 

[Billsfan1972]

8 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

I think it's you who's missing the point.

 

How could choosing Peterman define McDermott when he has no other choice. It's a dumb statement.

 

If the statement had been different, something about bringing in a different QB at some point, my answer would have been different. It's simply a dumb headline. And your post here is wacky and non-responsive.

Geez!!!!!  That's what I said.  They bring in McCoy & Bridgewater like the Jets did and it is a completely different debate (notwithstanding LAC & Watkins)......  McDermott has talked up Peterman as his boy since drafting him.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

"So yes it all comes back to Peterman and McDermott's (who drafted him as Beane wasn't there) dogged defense of him and wanting him to succeed that has this team in such disarray."  

 

No, the continuing disarray with this team is due to the Bills' inability to keep anyone designated as QB so far this year, upright. Whether that is a schematic issue, talent issue, dumb luck, or all of the above, the fact is that you wouldn't have seen NP start again for the Bills if either of the 2 starters since the Ravens game weren't knocked silly into next week. We all feared that would happen at some point behind this O-line. JA's injury was a freak occurrence, DA's was not, immobile statue that he is.  If either of the QB's in front of him were healthy enough to play, or if Barkley were up to speed on the playbook, NP would not be starting this week. How does that qualify as a "dogged defense" where there are no more bodies available on short notice to run out there?

[billsfan1959]

24 minutes ago, nucci said:

well, would have been nice if they told us there were no plans for winning. we could have taken the season off like they have. We were 9-7  and in the playoffs last season. Most teams build off that.

It was always about tearing the team down last year, finding a franchise QB and other talent in the draft while eating the dead cap money this year, and building around their franchise QB while continuing to add defensive talent next year. Last year's playoff appearance was more a testament to good coaching, a weak AFC, and luck than it was about talent on this team. The lack of talent on the offensive side of the ball was there last year and then compounded by the losses of Wood and Incognito, a lack of cap space to acquire quality offensive free agent talent, and the need to use high draft capital on their QB of the future.

 

You can agree with their plan or not; however, it was always pretty clear they would try to stay as competitive as they could with the talent they had, offensively, while putting themselves in a position to truly address the rebuild next year (while already having added some centerpiece players in White, Edmunds, and, hopefully, Allen). Anyone who didn't see this year coming either wasn't paying attention or didn't want to see it.

[LABILLBACKER]

Until we get a capable franchise qb, everything else is just noise. Yes Mcdermott's obsession over Peterman is troubling. Since taking over he has improved the defense. We don't know whether Allen will work out but if he doesn't upgrade this offense real fast he'll be out on the streets as a defensive coordinator again....

[BillsFan130]

1 hour ago, xsoldier54 said:

Easy for you to say.  There was nobody to backup Andersen.  You can't just sign someone off the street and suit them up.  They need time to learn the offense.  This isn't fantasy football.  Peterman will be gone soon enough, but right now he's the only option.

 

Please read what I wrote one more time. I said he should have been cut after week 1. 

 

They should have signed a veteran to backup Allen. Like an Anderson, or Matt Moore, or Barkley, or trade a mid to late round pick for a veteran QB . Literally anything.

 

It is inexcusable to have Peterman on this roster.

 

They have to go with him now cause they have no choice. And that just shows how much Mcd and Beane butchered this situation 

[MJS]

Peterman playing has mostly been from a lack of choice. Tyrod was stinking up the place, so McDermott felt the need to make a change and Peterman was the next man up.

 

Peterman out performed the other QB's in the off-season and preseason, so he was a seemingly logical choice.

 

And now he starts from other QB's being injured.

 

I'm sure McDermott would be starting Aaron Rodgers if we had him, but we don't. We have Peterman and a bunch of injured guys.

[nucci]

1 hour ago, xsoldier54 said:

Easy for you to say.  There was nobody to backup Andersen.  You can't just sign someone off the street and suit them up.  They need time to learn the offense.  This isn't fantasy football.  Peterman will be gone soon enough, but right now he's the only option.

 

Yet they have done this by signing Anderson and starting him and have now signed Barkley

[Cotton Fitzsimmons]

YE OLE will not argue that the QB situation has been badly mishandled. A veteran like Anderson

should have been brought in sooner. And you probably won’t get much argument that Peterman should have been cut after week 1.  But, specifically for this game, I don’t think much could have been done to avoid disaster. Any team in the league, when down to their 3rd QB is probably trotting out someone from their PS a la Alex “Trick Shot” Tanny or someone like Matt Barkley. Maybe you get lucky and catch lightning in a bottle like with this Mullen’s joker last night, but it’s not likely. 

 

As bad as Peterman has been at turning the ball over, there are some throws he can make. It’d be nice if they can get him faking some of those out routes and lob some shots over the top like the one he dropped into Zay for the TD.

[CookieG]

40 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Nah. The last 17 years were a series of GMs and coaches refusing to rebuild. "Sure, we were 7-9 last year but that was only bad luck. Next year we'll definitely do it. We don't need a rebuild. We'll just reload and reload and reload and reload." That's what's made the last 17 years so awful.

 

Consciously choosing the hell of a rebuild is pretty much the opposite of what was done for nearly all of the last 17 years.

Yeah, well, I'm not really sure where people get this, "we've never rebuilt before".

 

TD/GW took over in 2001. After 2002, there were about 3 starters on each side of the ball left.

 

Offense

Moulds

Price

Brown

 

Defense

Pat Williams

Winfield

maybe someone else

 

Jauron took over in 2006, by 2007 you again had about 3 players from each side of the ball left.

 

Offense

Evans

Josh Reed

Peters

(I suppose you can count Losman)

 

Defense

 

Schobel

Kelsay

McGee

maybe you can count Crowell and Greer, but they weren't starters in 2005.

 

I won't go into Buddy's regime..but it was clear that he was trying to rebuild the D, hoping it was going to be another Chargers D of the mid 2000's. And of course, he provided like 1 player to the O (Spiller).

 

In each case, a new coach, new GM new defensive scheme and of course, a new RB. In each case, the leaders of the old regime were gone. In each case, the cap was used as the excuse, "cap hell" was the catch phrase for the TD regime, "cash to cap" was the Levy/Jauron buzzword.

 

The only thing that stopped Rex from completely tearing down the 4th ranked defense he inherited was his firing. He was only able to get away with a partial tear down.

 

I'm not sure how those don't classify as a rebuild, at least the TD and Jauron regimes.

 

Unless, you're talking about tanking...which is just, so Cleveland.

 

In none of those cases did you have an offense that finished the prior season 10th in the NFL in scoring.

 

 

 

 

[TH3]

3 hours ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Very simply McDermott & this staff lost me in 2017 w

 Come back when they are gone

[KD in CA]

3 hours ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Very simply McDermott & this staff lost me in 2017 when they started dismantling the team in the pre-season.  I am no draft geek or understand schemes and the details.  I watch the game with my two eyes and wanted to see a better passing game and improved D in 2017.  Then the Bills started trading players in skill positions with recognizable names. 

 

So quite literally a fan who's upset the team isn't being built on the "I've heard of him!!" model.    

[IDBillzFan]

52 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Yep. 

 

Tired of our football team sucking year in and year out for the better part of 20 straight years. How dare us?

 

We choose to follow the team, and most of us go into the new season with hope. Some hope for wins. Some hope for progress. Some hope a miracle.

 

On the other hand, I choose not to open another "We need to fire everyone! Everyone sucks!" thread with any hope that it will be anything other than another tired thread of which fourteen already remain from the same four people.

 

Especially when firing everyone is THE most tiresome chant someone can posit.

 

If you're really tired of the team sucking for the better part of 20 years, here's an idea: find the person making you follow the team and bit the snottschitt out of them to make them stop.

Edited November 2, 2018 by LABillzFan

[2003Contenders]

Not sure why this is so hard to understand:

 

The plan this season was to have a veteran QB come in and serve as a bridge until Allen is ready. The team thought they were getting such a guy in AJ McCarron. However, McCarron did not live up to expectations and Peterman out-played him in the preseason. When the Raiders offered a 5th rounder, McCarron became fully expendable. After they traded McCarron, there were reports that the Bills reached out to other veteran QBs (including D. Anderson); however, they were unable to make a deal.

 

I do believe that the coaching staff (and McDermott in particular) like Peterman, but they also know what they have in him. Peterman seems like a good kid who really WANTS to be a good QB. He just does not have the physical talent. That said, the team gave Peterman a shot against the Chargers last season -- and McD was quick to pull the hook, benching him at halftime. The only time he saw any playing time at all the rest of the season was when Tyrod got hurt (before the Colts game and during the Jacksonville playoff game).

 

By de facto, Peterman started the first game against Baltimore -- and, again, McD was quick to pull the hook and bench him at halftime -- making the decision to go to Allen, even though they desperately wanted to red-shirt the rookie.  Given that the team likes to carry two healthy QBs, my guess is that Peterman would have been cut if they had another viable QB on the roster besides Allen. When they finally brought Anderson in a couple of days before the Houston game, they most likely planned to cut Peterman sometime the following week. However, Allen got hurt, leaving Anderson and Peterman as the only healthy QBs. As such, Anderson got the start the next 2 games. Now that Anderson is out, that leaves Peterman. So, it took injuries to two QBs (including one who has only been with the team for a couple of weeks) to get Peterman back on the field. And, with both Allen and Anderson ailing, they just brought in Matt Barkley.

 

With the bye week approaching and Allen hopefully healing up, the Chicago game could very well represent Peterman's last chance in the NFL.

[rodneykm]

5 hours ago, wppete said:

McDermott digging his own grave.

 

Starting today, what would you do differently? Who's your starter this weekend?

[Fadingpain]

If it wasn't for all the losing, it would be fun watching McDermott dig his own grave with Peterman.

 

Nothing we haven't seen many times before.  The ego/hubris of McD is the only reason Peterman is still on the team, much less playing.

 

We can all take solace in the fact that McD will pay for this with his job.

 

End of 2019 season probably, though could be sooner depending on how bad Allen and the team look next year.

 

 

[Yav]

Yea, off with the coaches head. How dare he start Peterman again, after all we have Barkley now and he really doesn't know the playbook. Better yet, lets play Allen, who cares that he can't trow yet and that he's injured. Oh, I know Anderson, screw the concussion protocol and injuries. 

 

SMH - seriously what option does he have? And don't start this ***** about AJ and not addressing the QB situation. Right now in this position what option does he have? Don't worry, I'll reply for you. Peterman or Peterman.

 

/end

[HomeskillitMoorman]

3 hours ago, CLTbills said:

I don't really think he's "picking" Peterman in this case. Everybody else is hurt. 

I'm not going to excuse him for picking him last year over Tyrod, or week 1 over Josh and AJ. 

But in this case, who else was he supposed to pick?

 

Who's fault is that? This regime made him a top 2 QB for the organization coming into the year, and not only that, decided he was good enough to be so reliable that he could start and then later on be the primary back up for Allen...fully knowing that the pickings would be incredibly slim on getting anyone half-decent during the season.

 

People are acting like this situation was forced upon this regime. It wasn't. It's happened because of Beane and McDermott's incredible level of failure with the most important position in sports. 

[NextYear'sTheOne]

"I don't really pay attention, but I'm mad" - OP

[Nihilarian]

I wonder how long it will take before we see Matt Barkley?

 

How many picks by Peterpick?

[Skins Malone]

55 minutes ago, NextYear'sTheOne said:

"I don't really pay attention, but I'm mad" - OP

This.  A guy who claims the coach lost him before he even coached a game.  All because he traded Watkins...oh yeah hey...isn't that the year the Bill's went to the playoffs for the first time in almost 20?

 

And OP you can say what you want but I guarantee you were screaming and jumping when Dalton made that pass. 

 

Was it a fluke we made the playoffs..Maybe.   But the fact remains McD is the first Bill's coach to get us to the playoffs in 20 years.  In his first year.  Now I'm not saying he will work out but I'm fine with giving him time.  Is so easy to scream for people to be fired but most of you have no realistic plan.   You say stuff like...bring in a coach that understands offense...yeah that means nothing.  

 

 

[ctk232]

6 hours ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Very simply McDermott & this staff lost me in 2017 when they started dismantling the team in the pre-season.  I am no draft geek or understand schemes and the details.  I watch the game with my two eyes and wanted to see a better passing game and improved D in 2017.  Then the Bills started trading players in skill positions with recognizable names.  I was really upset with the Watkins trade in this was borne out based on just how anemic the passing game was and the fact the Offense was putrid and unimaginative.  

 

I didn't know Nathan Peterman from a hole in the wall and couldn't care less about the 5th round draft pick as the Bills back-up.

 

Then came the LAC debacle and McD's defense of the decision and the disaster it was.  

 

If not for injuries/concussions, I wouldn't have been surprised to have seen Peterman start the playoff game (shade of Rob Johnson). 

 

They then draft their franchise QB in Allen (again knew the name and the details, but little else) and excited as to the future, but still worried about the offense and whether the staff & FO learned anything from 2017.

 

They sign AJ McCarron and I wonder why another 5th round back-up with all of 3 NFL games and even I wonder how is this so different from Peterman.

 

I then wondered if this was simply so that there was another QB in camp that Peterman could beat out and be named the starter so that he could redeem himself as a competent starting QB and McD be vindicated for the mockery of the decison to start him vs. the Chargers.  

 

Yes I was right and they traded AJ and Peterman was the starter, same as Bradford in Arizona & TT in Cleveland.  Bridgewater was traded so that if Darnold struggled there was a "real" vereran behind him and not someone like Bridgewater competing to start.  

 

So yes it all comes back to Peterman and McDermott's (who drafted him as Beane wasn't there) dogged defense of him and wanting him to succeed that has this team in such disarray.    

I'm confused - didn't they sign McCarron prior to drafting Allen? Might just be how I'm reading the first part, but the chronology seems off there. 

 

Second to the second passage emboldened - you're claiming, based off of pure speculation as far as I can tell and research, that McD and Beane brought in McCarron for the sole purpose of making Peterman the starter? Thereby risking their entire future on a conspiracy to start a 5th round pick? Even after the fact that they said McCarron wasn't the QB they thought he was, and clearly isn't, AND he also got injured prior to starting the season. Even I question not keeping him on the roster at that time but this conspiracy is fairly illogical.

 

I mean, say what you will about McD but the likelihood of him basing a decision off of pure pride and as you've stated, sabotage, is just lunacy.

[CookieG]

2 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Yep. 

 

Tired of our football team sucking year in and year out for the better part of 20 straight years. How dare us?

It's just some people trying to find rational for what McBeane have done/are doing. 

 

 

There are enough analogies for what they've done to the offense. 

 

The young roofing contractor you hire who decides to rip apart the HVAC system, leaving AC and furnace parts scattered all over the basement as he tries to gerry rig it back together;

The computer geek you hired to design a website, who decides to fool around with your OS, screwing it up royally.

The mechanic you hire for engine work, but he takes it on himself to rebuild your transmission, never having worked on one, much less rebuild one. And now with tranny parts all over the garage, he keeps trying to jam in salvage yard parts.

 

Based on what they had on O, this could have been one of the easiest "rebuilds" for a Bills O in recent memory.  They chose the path of most resistance, for a task that neither has ever attempted.

1 hour ago, LABillzFan said:

 

 

 

If you're really tired of the team sucking for the better part of 20 years, here's an idea: find the person making you follow the team and bit the snottschitt out of them to make them stop.

Well, that would be my parents, since they brought me into the world, and like most Bills' fans, its part of our DNA.

 

My dad's been gone for 30 years and my mom is in her 80's, so I'm not beating her, or biting her.