BigBuff423

I find it interesting everyone - AFTER ONE FREAKING WEEK - is ready to throw in the towel on how this team, i.e. McDermott, develops talent and in this thread's specific case, QB. I don't know why it's so hard for fans to understand what has actually happened when you take the intent of Beane and McD with what happened in the Off-season to know this season was essentially a virtual guarantee to be a rough one, and they knew it. Tyrod Taylor is not Josh McCown or some other wily Vet who would have been content to mentor the new QB savior of the Buffalo Bills. He wanted to start and he wanted some room to show he could continue to start as a QB for years to come, that wasn't happening in Buffalo. They had him for one more year on a $16 million deal for ONE year. That means, they would have had to either pay him again or let him go. Some of you people that are complaining about not keeping him, with one year left on a deal, are the same that would be complaining that the Bills didn't at least get a ham sandwich for him. Well, they did much better than that because what they got in return led to Edmunds - who some had going in the top 10, the Bills got at 16. Additionally, Beane and McD planned to strip away all of the poor contracts doled out by Whaley and they knew it was going to be hard for the first two years, in order to Draft their guys, sign the talent they believed fit the team and left the driftwood of the dead Cap money float away. Furthermore, they were also getting rid of guys (although I didn't and still don't like the Darby trade) who they didn't feel met their expectations of team first mentality. Then you have the retirement of Wood which came unexpectedly, and yes it was early in the Off-season but if you couldn't tell these guys had a plan and they were NOT deviating from that plan. Then, when they thought Richie was still in the fold for one more year, he abruptly "retires" because he didn't like the renegotiated deal. That's two big pieces that were originally unanticipated. Again, they could have responded but what were they to do? They could have tried to throw money at a guy like Nate Solder or Norwell, but they were bound and determined to set themselves free from Cap hell. And guess what....they have. They're sucking it up this year to make the long-term better. In the interim, they Drafted their future in Allen and Edmunds and still came away with Horrible Harry which may very well be the steal of the Draft and a guy like Teller who might start on the Offensive line next year, not bad for a 5th round pick. But we forget, none of these guys would be here (except maybe Harrison Phillips) if it weren't for the other trades to get them in position to make these moves. It sucks to watch a poor Offensive line be truly ineffective and the hodge-podge mix of WRs and Clay who has never come close to his contract run routes. But that said, if we were to reverse the two years: last year this total tear-down and looking ugly and this year we slipped into the playoffs, would fans be so impatient? I don't think so....last year was great, and I'm glad that damn monkey got sitting our backs got his throat slit, but I think any reasonable fan knew this was a 2 to 3 year rebuild. They're doing what they can to win now - i.e. bringing in Kerley as a the slot guy, and Star and Trent, in a way that doesn't over extend themselves and we're still JUST ONE GAME into the season. Who knows how this goes. But saying that McD and the team can't develop talent, seems to ignore how much they got out of Tre, Poyer, and Hyde last year or how Milano went from being a late round pick to a strong starter by year's end or how Dawkins was a 2nd round pick that afforded the team the ability to trade Glenn to move up and get Allen. I'm not saying I've agreed with ever decision or that I know for sure they can develop a QB or even have the mind for Offense that's needed. What I am saying is that it's WAAAAAY too early to make that kind of conclusion, especially when McD and his staff and Beane and his staff have already made the playoffs in their first year (regardless of how, they still had to be in a position to do that at the end of the year when no one, not even us fans, gave them a chance). Peterman was a poor choice, but McD had to be a man of his word and say that whomever earned that right, would get it. Then, Allen struggled in the Bengals game and Peterman - up to that point - was just lights out. Over 80% completion rate, 1 INT that bounced of Ivory's hands, multiple TDs and moving the Offense up and down the field. What happened? Well, I suppose we know definitively without question Nate is just not a Sunday QB, he's a great practice and scrimmage QB. I have a feeling, Allen will be the opposite and when the lights come on, the pressure bears down and the yards and games count, he'll shine. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's time to find out.

And that may be a good approach...and coached properly, it might very well be a terrific way to accomplish that. However, my fear would be that a young man running the no huddle in his first NFL game, might feel as though it's more of a 2-minute Offense, like the K-Gun. I'm not suggesting that's your point, but just that the unintended consequence *might* be Allen's perception of how the no huddle is operating. All of that said, however Daboll and his crew design the Offense for Sunday it needs to adequately account for Allen's strengths and weaknesses, including his status as a Rookie and what they can do to best mitigate that effect. I will be very interested to see how Daboll and the coaches use Allen's skill set and limitations to maximize Offensive output and limit self-inflicted damage.

It's not a bad plan, but that is also very much a double-edged sword. If Allen and the Offense fail to get in rhythm the Defense is on the field a lot! So, in theory, it sounds all well and good, but WRs drop a ball, Shady gets stuffed at the line and 3rd a long is a real possibility all in under a minute and a half and the D pins their ears back and sends the house. Now, you're hoping a WR steps it up and gets separation, the receiver selection to pass to is the right read, the receiver makes the catch and it all occurs without penalty and past the sticks. Should it happen in the NFL? Of course! But given this Offense's difficulty in moving the ball, it seems a bit more methodical would be the way to go to start the game. Now, through the 1st Quarter and they've had either real success or even some limited success moving the ball and Allen feels more comfortable and the Defense isn't worn down, then maybe you go No Huddle for the 2nd Quarter so that at least the Defense gets a break at the half. If it's no go, maybe you slow it down again, if it's working, then you go back to it. Basically, starting out that way doesn't necessarily help him, it only makes him feel more rushed (maybe?) - so it's a gamble and not one I would want to see right out of the gate. But, who knows?

Anyone else find it mildly poetic that Peterman's first start was against the Chargers and now Allen's first start is against the Chargers? Cosmic forces at work....

Um, you're absolutely right....but then again, unless someone on this board is Sean McD - NOBODY knows what's true. This was an opinion, as are most things on this board unless you're linking to an article or quoting another person. So, I'm not defending it's truth, as I said, "this tells me..." see what I did there? I referenced my own opinion.... As for fiction....fiction is a story designed to entertain an audience. I clearly stated it was ....are you ready??? ....are you sure???....my.....opinion. Earth shattering I know....but, there it is for all the world to see / read....hopefully, this helps.

No problem...probably my issue....I've become accustomed to board responses being less than civil....apologies for making that assumption. Thanks.

C'mon....that's a lame and easy explanation. Of course you can say, "Well, it's Pre-Season".....but if it isn't for evaluating players, then other than a glorified scrimmage, it doesn't mean anything. Pre-Season is in fact a way to evaluate players, it's one of the main reasons why it exists. So, evaluating Peterman in the Pre-Season during a live game (no, it's not the same - obviously) showed he was precise - somewhere around 80% completion percentage - getting TDs, NOT throwing INTs (just one that bounced off of Ivory that hit him in the hands and shoulder) and moving the Offense. That, was a masterful use of his skills and the playbook - and to go from that level of competence, to the utter debauchery that was Sunday - is just puzzling. I did NOT expect him to excel the way he did in Pre-Season, so I anticipated a drop-off in production and efficiency, but to go from Pre-Season to that excrement pile of garbage is just....stunning. Make all the short-cut explanations as you did, but that does not even come close to adequately answering the question why / how does Peterman demonstrate such a precipitous drop in production & ability from Pre-Season to game day? I don't know....I'm just asking the question and expecting not to get curt answers in response....

If this report is true, then this tells me McD believed all along that Josh was ready, but because Nate didn't give him enough of a reason to start Josh OVER Peterman, he basically needed to start Nate in order to be a man of his word. He said whoever earned that right, and throughout the Pre-Season, Peterman *did* in fact earn that right. We can say all we want that none of us liked him or we knew he was going to be terrible, blah, blah, blah....in the end Peterman didn't do anything to justify taking the starting job away from him, from his first pass and Pre-Season game all the way through the last Pre-Season game. I can't figure out why Nate can be that good to be soooooooo bad when the lights come on for real - but no doubt he was and is.... This tells me McD knew Josh could play right away and probably wanted to start him right away, but as I said, he needed to keep his word to keep his credibility with his team to insure the locker room stayed tight for the season. IF this is true, then good for McD willing to admit he needs to change course and let the Rook go for the year and learn on the job. Experience is the best teacher.

I'm presuming he meant Taiwan, not Zay..... Now, if you still have an issue with that - I'm puzzled, but to each his own.

I suppose....and this instance, I'll listen to the expert.

And while you're absolutely right, I also wonder at what point is the talent level just not there...? I don't know and I"m not already making excuses for that game, but I think it's a legitimate question about where the line in coaching overcomes the deficiency in talent. Of course a great coach can overcome poor talent, but at some level, the talent itself has to be there. Now, if the Bills start Peterman (AGAIN!) and they lay an egg, I am more than willing to put that McD's feet. Not necessarily because of the loss, but because based on the Ravens game, it seemed painfully obvious to me at least that Peterman didn't have the confidence of the Offense. And that IS a coach's job to know and prepare or plan for if you can't change it. In this case, he can - sometimes a coach just doesn't have a choice with whom to play. But, if the Bills have an abysmal game and Allen starts, then the problems are even deeper. All of that said, and of course I'm probably waaaaaaaay wrong since I usually am, IF Allen starts, I don't think the Bills put an ugly product on the field. I think they probably still lose (hope I'm wrong), but it's more of a competitive loss, or basically an NFL loss. I think the Defense rebounds nicely between last week's poor showing, being at home and the weather being better, I think there's improvement. How much? I'm not sure....but I think they're better. If Allen starts, I think the Offense shows true signs of life.

Plus, Murphy actually looked better....and that's hard to say, especially since Shady is my 3rd RB on my Fantasy Football team and was in the Flex position....yeah, I lost.

If you're really strong, and really focus I'm sure you can catch it.... You know....the sky that's falling. Buh-bye now....

Again, it wasn't comparing resumes it was more a matter of even one of the best of all time had his first 5-11 season. Additionally, do you remember the post-game presser after the 41-14 drubbing the Pats took against the Chiefs? The simple line, "We're on to Cincinnatti" was used over and over....he did say the coaching and playing were both bad, but that's about it. "We're on to Cincinnatti"....again, the point is that people want a sacrificial lamb on the alter after a game like that but refuse to acknowledge that's just to make themselves feel better, it's not because it truly accomplishes anything for the team. The larger point is that by McD remaining silent or stoic when the easy choice is to say what he's truly feeling is exactly what the players need. They don't need to be hung out to dry with the media, they know they played terribly. What they need is for a HC and staff to take the heat and then come together in the locker room on Tuesday and say, "F this, we're not playing like that anymore!".....and for the coaches to speak directly to them, not the media. As for Peterman, I'm not a fan and I think the change to Allen is a no-brainer. But, McD said Allen would have to earn it and that Peterman did earn it by showing well in Pre-Season. It's obvious for all of Peterman's hard work, he didn't progress - so now, it's Allen time. McD was true to his word, Peterman played himself out of a job - let the Allen era begin.

Fair enough that you disagree, but the highlighted portion is why I called him a "poor man's" version of Pennington because he would try to do things his arm just wasn't capable of doing but pushed the limit anyways. But they both could read Defenses and both could anticipate, but as you said the difference is Pennington was very much aware of his limitations whereas Fitz continued to try and will it into existence. As for the second portion, technically just because he started for a few years in Buffalo that's an inaccurate statement. I get your larger point in that essentially that's who he actually is, but that's not what his status has always been.

No, not really. Belichick doesn't give two poops what the public thinks, he coaches and manages the way he sees fit and that's it. Doesn't care one iota what is written about him, what fans think of him or anyone else for that matter. Now, it comes with the resume of winning, but he didn't always have that same resume and he was the same person. Please see his resignation to the Jets on a napkin for exhibit A in the evidence bag. Point being....we all want reassurance during the time of anxiety and doubt, but that's not his job at this point. His job is to course correct this team and he can't do that effectively if he loses the locker room due to being vocal about his displeasure with any one particular player unless it's off the field issues.

Again, the three and outs have a cumulative effect. I'm not saying the Defense was good, I'm saying it's not as bad as some are making it out to be when you look at the totality of circumstances. Dumping all over the Defense without taking into consideration just how much was asked of them in context of what the Offense *didn't* do, is failing to put it in perspective, IMHO.

As I said, the Defense was not great - but they were not as bad as the score or fans would indicate. It was a cumulative effect outside of the first drive. They were clearly still getting themselves acclimated but the Ravens had 34 rushes, for a 3.4 yard average and possessed the ball for over 35 minutes. That, takes a cumulative effect on a Defense and had the Bills Offense been able to sustain a few drives, those numbers would look quite different. Additionally, keep in mind Lamar Jackson contributed to that rushing total. Ravens had 261 passing yards, not great but not abysmal. The score was the score because the Bills Offense couldn't get out of their own end and field position was generally not good for them, with the Defense needing to Defend a short field. Are they excused? Hell no! But it's not nearly the beat down the score would say it was. Additionally when put into context, we can see why there is hope for the Defense. The Offense is another issue - with Allen I think there's hope, with Peterman the Offense is toast.

I'll take Maclin and Joeckel for sure...Landry Jones, meh....maybe. Regardless, other than Benjamin's drops, it's really hard to judge the WRs given the poor Offensive line, constant penalties, lack of running game and poor QB play - until Allen came in and life was seemingly, although fleeting as it was, pumped back into the Offense. IMHO, Offensive line is a much bigger issue. Getting protection and opening running lanes will do wonders for WRs and buying enough time for them to get open. Separation is a problem, but Offensive line is a bigger one to me.

To me Fitz has always been a poor man's Chad Pennington: he doesn't have the arm but he does have the brains. I think of Top Gun slightly altered, "Son, you're brain is writing checks your body can't cash." Fitz's roast of Whaley was an all-time Bills great moment. He was a terrific teammate and loved how much he got out of Stevie and Spiller....in hindsight, Gailey's undoing was his Defensive hire, but man he did he make hay out of chicken-stuff on Offense.

When McD says he'll need to look at the tape, I suspect it's his way of saying, "Look, it's painfully obvious but I won't throw my QB under the bus in the media. Also, I need to tell him face-to-face that's he's done barring injury. Telling him now through you folks, isn't the kind of guy I am".... In other words, what else should he say about a player in particular? If he tosses Nate to the wolves he loses that credibility with his locker room. He needs to tell Nate personally before he says anything publicly. It's amusing to me that many people don't understand that. Take any other job, if your boss went to the other co-workers, along with your family, friends and neighbors and told them, "Dude is demoted, he couldn't cut it", before he / she spoke to you directly, that would be insulting, right? In that case, suck it up and do your job or look elsewhere but in the NFL it affects the locker room which affects the games. So, you take the heat for not stating the obvious and then you tell him on Tuesday that it's Josh Allen time. IF he doesn't....then flame away, but until then - let's give him a chance to just be a decent human being. Nothing to do with the Christian stuff....just sound management principles in terms of handling people.

And yet Mitch Trubisky and Jared Goff would disagree. Both have said despite their failures and how hard it was to go out and play and lose and get beat up at times, it was good for their development. Carson Wentz was subjected to the same fate, but he had similar sentiments from what I can recall. Basically, I was in favor of letting Allen sit and learn if Peterman could have shown anything of substance, but he can't and Allen should be the starter from now on - no question in my mind at this point. Twice in two years Peterman has been given a chance and he's catastrophically blown those chances. If Peterman had lost the game, but they lost something like 20-17 or similar but Peterman showing he can move the Offense, I could continue to accept Peterman just because it means the team is coming together but the Offense isn't there....but as bad as yesterday was for him, I don't see how you can put him back on the field next week. Also, people are crapping on the Defense, and they weren't great, but the poor Offensive play is cumulative to the Defense because the longer they're on the field - especially in hot, humid, rainy weather - the harder it is to maintain resistance. Basically, Defense was poor on the first drive, started to come together and then the Offense failed miserably and the Defense just couldn't keep their backbone due to exhaustion and frustration.

Look, some are going to blow this statement way out of proportion but oh well - to put into context a few things, Bill Belichick went 5-11 in his first season with the Pats. The next year Brady would start and they won a Super Bowl . I am NOT comparing McD to Belichick in saying he will have a similar or even remotely close to the same career NOR am I saying the Bills will win a Super Bowl anytime soon. I point out this one tiny fact of Belichick's first year to put all of this in perspective. Most of us can agree the Bills overachieved last year, right? And most of us can agree that the roster has taken a step backward overall - save this year's Draft picks we presume but has yet to be seen - in an effort to clear dead cap space and build the team Beane and McD believe is sustainable and fits their mold. That means, in one year they overachieved and this year IN ONE FREAKING GAME they've essentially played to the level most of us believed they would. This is not a shock, it's all part of The Process. Last year was an aberration and a delightful one, but this year *might* end up being what we all thought it would be: an arduous march down the path to prolonged improvement. For those calling for McD to be fired or Beane have poor memories for teams of the last 17 years. You've forgotten what a comprehensive plan looks like and what it means to be committed to that plan at all costs. The dead Cap screwed this team over and that is Doug F-in Whaley. At the same time when they knew it was going to be a year to get rid of the dead wood, they Drafted their future in Allen - Edmunds - and Harrison et. al., knowing this was a year to learn when next year would be the year to impress. Say what you will - but McD already exceeded expectations - this year, he's just trying to tread water. But make no mistake, with Beane's abilities and McD leading the team, IF WE ARE PATIENT FFS, this team will continue to get better and reach the level we expect them to in the next two to three years.

Really, if Trent isn't fully ready, Shaq should start. Bills will want to stop the run first and foremost anyways...use Trent in obvious pass rush situations and hopefully most of what he'll be doing is chasing the QB and not so much getting mixed into the body pile in run stoppage.

It really is about the status of a team as a whole. I for one am happy the Bills did not over pay for Mack, not because he isn't a great player but as others have said, it just anchors the Cap to a single position (it goes without saying QB is the only position worth that kind of investment). Otherwise, the great teams pay their lines - within reason - their QB and then use the Draft and great value to get the other skill positions as well as depth. Bills need OL help so spending there in FA makes sense ONLY if there are legit FAs available. Paying a guy a lot of money just to have a "guy" and because you've got the Cap space to spend it, doesn't amount to strategic targets and winning. Derrick Dockery anyone? Remember him? Bills raced to the phone at the opening of FA and gave him one of the richest contracts at the time and that, did not go well to say the least. Build through the Draft, pay your players that have proven to play well and fit in the culture, and get FAs that compliment your core, not become your core. FA WRs should be second teir guys, same with DBs and TEs. You spend Draft capital on the lines, LBers, and RB (due to short shelf life in NFL). I can see the Bills using FA money on DB, G and RT, keeping Groy at Center if he plays well, and a LBer to replace Lorax. Then using Draft for DE / DL, WR, RB and TE - almost in that order.