Matt Barkley extended for two years

[JohnC]

15 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

1.5 m a year for a 5 year vet QB is extremely low. There is no getting around that. It's a great deal for the Bills if they want him, and a great deal for Barkley because 1.5m versus not being in the league is great. But if you can get away with paying a veteran QB 3m for 2 years he is not very well thought of on the open market at all.

 As you noted he got a salary in the range where the open market pegged him at. So the Bills got a good deal and he got a fair deal. He's basically your standard veteran backup. But the advantage for the Bills is that he not only serves as an adequate backup but he also serves (along with Anderson) as a mentor for our young franchise qb. This trio has a good working relationship that is hopefully going to accelerate the development of our starting qb. 

 

If you consider the boondoggle of the McCarron deal and his salary structure this is a terrific deal for us. With hindsight it would have been so much better to bring Barkley (or even Derek Anderson) in as a temporary veteran starter or mentoring backup than it would have been with the McCarron deal. 

[Mat68]

Stability in the Qb room.  Barkley pretty solid back up.  Possible spot starter if Allen goes down.  Anderson is a player coach/ mentor.  Tall guy, strong arm, so will have positive insight.  Makes alot of sense all the way around.  After Jets game team has confidence in Barkley.  Because of Allen's style of play he could get an extended stretch of playing something I'm sure he wants.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 12/21/2018 at 2:14 PM, Kelly the Dog said:

You guys are going to regret this the next time he is asked to play close to a full game that counts.

 

(same question as @Fan in Chicago)

 

He played a couple decent games in Chicago in 2016.  I'd be upset if we were signing him as a starter, but as a backup we could look further and do worse.

[Nanker]

On 1/1/2019 at 8:54 AM, Seoulful Soul said:

 

I love Bills "fans" that continually throw shade on the team.

He hates most USC QBs.  Not without reason though. Not at all. 

[Kelly the Dog]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

(same question as @Fan in Chicago)

 

He played a couple decent games in Chicago in 2016.  I'd be upset if we were signing him as a starter, but as a backup we could look further and do worse.

That's not really the point. And he didn't really play all that well as his two best games were losses when he threw a couple INTs as well as got a bunch of yards. Another downside of him as a backup is in OTAs and camp and preseason, the WRs, TEs and RBs go from catching balls from the hardest thrower in the league to one of the very weakest. That makes the play completely different a lot of times. It's not the worst thing but it doesn't help. Just any average backup QB has a much stronger arm and gets the ball there. He's not good. He has a rag arm. He had a fluke game. If Anderson and Barkley are both on the active roster I imagine Anderson is active on game day and he stinks.

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

That's not really the point. And he didn't really play all that well as his two best games were losses when he threw a couple INTs as well as got a bunch of yards. Another downside of him as a backup is in OTAs and camp and preseason, the WRs, TEs and RBs go from catching balls from the hardest thrower in the league to one of the very weakest. That makes the play completely different a lot of times. It's not the worst thing but it doesn't help. Just any average backup QB has a much stronger arm and gets the ball there. He's not good. He has a rag arm. He had a fluke game. If Anderson and Barkley are both on the active roster I imagine Anderson is active on game day and he stinks.

It's very unlikely that Anderson would be active on game days ahead of Barkley. Odds are that Anderson will be with the Bills for one year to be Allen's tutor. His contributing role will be more in the study room than on the field. 

[Doc]

4 minutes ago, JohnC said:

It's very unlikely that Anderson would be active on game days ahead of Barkley. Odds are that Anderson will be with the Bills for one year to be Allen's tutor. His contributing role will be more in the study room than on the field. 

 

Yeah, Anderson was only signed as a player because it allows him to work with Josh over the off-season at any time (whereas if he were a coach he could only have a limited contact).   And then he’ll be on the field as a coach/mentor during games.  If the Bills sign or draft a quarterback that has any promise, they’ll cut Anderson and sign him as a coach. 

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah, Anderson was only signed as a player because it allows him to work with Josh over the off-season at any time (whereas if he were a coach he could only have a limited contact).   And then he’ll be on the field as a coach/mentor during games.  If the Bills sign or draft a quarterback that has any promise, they’ll cut Anderson and sign him as a coach. 

As you suggest regardless what his official role is it is primarily to tutor Allen. I wouldn't be surprised if Anderson participated in formulating the game plan. Where I disagree with you is that I don't see the Bills using a draft pick on a qb this year. 

[Kelly the Dog]

13 minutes ago, JohnC said:

It's very unlikely that Anderson would be active on game days ahead of Barkley. Odds are that Anderson will be with the Bills for one year to be Allen's tutor. His contributing role will be more in the study room than on the field. 

Both of them are there for the study room and to help Allen. It's a toss up between which one, this coming year, barring injury, will be the backup on gameday. I would bet on Anderson beating out Barkley for that job. Although we have seen McDermott become infatuated with weak-armed practice stars, which may make him choose Barkley.

 

I said over and over last off season that Allen should start day one and that the absolute worst case scenario is that Peterman wows McDermott in practice and preseason because that is when weak armed guys can excel, and that he starts Peterman over Allen. And that is exactly what happened.

 

I'm still not convinced McDermott knows much about offense, which seems crazy. But he did start Peterman twice for no reason, and it took him an entire half season to realize that an NFL team needs speed at WR. Then said publicly, "obviously speed helps."

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Both of them are there for the study room and to help Allen. It's a toss up between which one, this coming year, barring injury, will be the backup on gameday. I would bet on Anderson beating out Barkley for that job. Although we have seen McDermott become infatuated with weak-armed practice stars, which may make him choose Barkley.

 

I said over and over last off season that Allen should start day one and that the absolute worst case scenario is that Peterman wows McDermott in practice and preseason because that is when weak armed guys can excel, and that he starts Peterman over Allen. And that is exactly what happened.

 

I'm still not convinced McDermott knows much about offense, which seems crazy. But he did start Peterman twice for no reason, and it took him an entire half season to realize that an NFL team needs speed at WR. Then said publicly, "obviously speed helps."

The Peterman advancement had more to do with this regime's miscalculation on McCarron. That was the big mistake. As it turned out your preferred scenario materialized because of Peterman's demise. My position regarding Peterman or McCarron or Barkley or Anderson is that I simply don't give a serious dam about any of them. The real issue (as you indicate) was what was the best situation for Allen. The end result is that Allen got the required playing time to better prepare him for next season. That's what really matters. 

 

Where I disagree with you is that I'm more than satisfied with Barkley as a backup. He is a mature player/person who is willing to accept his role as a backup and be supportive of the young starting qb. For me in that role he is a good fit. 

[Kelly the Dog]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The Peterman advancement had more to do with this regime's miscalculation on McCarron. That was the big mistake. As it turned out your preferred scenario materialized because of Peterman's demise. My position regarding Peterman or McCarron or Barkley or Anderson is that I simply don't give a serious dam about any of them. The real issue (as you indicate) was what was the best situation for Allen. The end result is that Allen got the required playing time to better prepare him for next season. That's what really matters. 

 

Where I disagree with you is that I'm more than satisfied with Barkley as a backup. He is a mature player/person who is willing to accept his role as a backup and be supportive of the young starting qb. For me in that role he is a good fit. 

I agree with all of that. I am just saying that if Barkley has to play again in a real game, we are not going to see the Barkley of the Jets game but much, much greater chance of seeing a Peterman-esque game. His problem with the Eagles and with the Bears, and I watched a few of those games, was not inexperience, it was his weak arm. He got away with several in the Jets game.

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I agree with all of that. I am just saying that if Barkley has to play again in a real game, we are not going to see the Barkley of the Jets game but much, much greater chance of seeing a Peterman-esque game. His problem with the Eagles and with the Bears, and I watched a few of those games, was not inexperience, it was his weak arm. He got away with several in the Jets game.

He's a backup caliber qb because of his arm limitations. That's why he is a backup for us and was attained at a good value price. I can't complain about that. This is a good situation for him and the organization.

[Kelly the Dog]

34 minutes ago, JohnC said:

He's a backup caliber qb because of his arm limitations. That's why he is a backup for us and was attained at a good value price. I can't complain about that. This is a good situation for him and the organization.

I understand that position, which is what most people here think and that's okay. My position is that he had a fluke game, and he shouldn't be the main backup at all, and that 90% of the posters here are going to say what the hell happened to him the next time he plays.  

 

If he plays four games IMO he goes 1-3. We want a guy who has a better chance of going 2-2. Anderson has a better chance. It's not something we can answer now. But even counting that great game, he is 2-5 with 10/18 TD/INT and a 68 rating. That's who he is.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Kelly the Dog

[Doc]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

As you suggest regardless what his official role is it is primarily to tutor Allen. I wouldn't be surprised if Anderson participated in formulating the game plan. Where I disagree with you is that I don't see the Bills using a draft pick on a qb this year. 

 

They most likely won’t use a draft pick on a quarterback unless one they rated fairly highly drops down far enough. You never know. But I do expect them to pick one up after the draft. 

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I understand that position, which is what most people here think and that's okay. My position is that he had a fluke game, and he shouldn't be the main backup at all, and that 90% of the posters here are going to say what the hell happened to him the next time he plays.  

 

If he plays four games IMO he goes 1-3. We want a guy who has a better chance of going 2-2. Anderson has a better chance. It's not something we can answer now. But even counting that great game, he is 2-5 with 10/18 TD/INT and a 68 rating. That's who he is.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree that at this stage in Derek Anderson's career that he would be a better backup than Barkley. Considering that the Bills gave Barkley a two year contract I think they also take that same position. My expectations for Barkley aren't that lofty. I don't expect him to repeat his sterling performance that he had in NY. What I expect him to be able to do is when called upon to competently be able to run a pro offense and make good decisions.

 

This is simply a case of different preferences for a backup qb. We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out. 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[MJS]

2 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

Rookie deals give you a lot of flexibility. Hopefully Allen can become really good in the next couple years and we can make a run before having to pay him the big bucks.