hondo in seattle

I actually think a lot of teams would love to have him as a backup. Whatever he did last year, he was pretty impressive in preseason this year. As the B/R article points out, Peterman led the league in completion pct and yards-per-attempt. But is a he a good starter? That's hard to say. It looks like he's improved both his arm strength and his reads since last year. But let's see what the regular season holds before we label him as a boom or bust. I'd be happy if we got 8 average-ish starts out of him and - with the help of our D - we were sitting at 4-4 when Allen took over. I really hope Allen can learn to process what he's seeing faster. When/if that happens, he'll be the better QB. Right now, Peterman is.

Bleacher Report, for one, endorses the move. I wonder if it's their ego or if they're looking for redemption? Buffalo Bills Sitting Josh Allen Is the Right Decision in the Long Run The Bills spent the entire offseason searching for a franchise quarterback only to stick with a signal-caller already on the roster. The reason is simple: Allen isn't ready, and Peterman is a better NFL quarterback right now. Allen's control of the offense, overall accuracy and ability to handle pressure have yet to reach professional standards... Allen's admitted to NFL.com's Kevin Patra that he's struggling with the speed of the NFL game, which could be damning in the long run. "Getting out there with the first team, obviously it's moving really fast," he said. "To see that speed, it was eye-opening. [Cincinnati has] a really good defense. They came out and they brought it. But at the same time, we had plays in place that could've worked if I got the ball out in time. It just didn't happen enough tonight. "Sometimes when the play clock got a little low and I couldn't really dissect what they were doing and understanding what they were doing, it's tough on a quarterback." https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2793927-buffalo-bills-sitting-josh-allen-is-the-right-decision-in-the-long-run?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

I've heard that Peterman looked good in practice last season - better than Tyrod. And there were some hints that Rico felt Peterman's skill set fit his offense better. So McD named him the starter and it didn't work out. That's life in the NFL. Why would McD dwell on this?

The Bills had a choice: a. Build chemistry by lining up the same five starters in every preseason game. b. See which combination works the best by trying different combinations. There are pros and cons to each option but clearly the Bills went with "b." It's an interesting choice given that we're integrating at least two new starters into the offensive line. You could argue it would have been wiser to build chemistry.

Before camp stated, I said "AJ is the present, Allen is the future, and Peterman is the odd man out." Obviously, I didn't have a high opinion of Peterman. But now he's the starter and I'm completely behind the decision. McD made three guys compete to line up under center this Sunday and there was a clear winner. Peterman completed over 80% of his passes, led scoring drives, and attained a passer rating of something like 124 this past preseason. I doubt if McD still 'fumes' over the Peterman's debacle of last year. I think McD's a smart coach and thus he's much more focused on winning than ego. In any case, the best way to support your ego as a coach is by winning. The offseason doesn't actually provide a lot of time for a coaching staff to work with a rookie QB. Giving Josh - who was outplayed by Peterman in preseason - some additional time on the practice field and in the film room before becoming a starter is a perfectly rational decision. I would hope the team wants to set Josh up for success. Putting him out there against a good D with an inferior OL and an inferior ability to make presnap reads is not a winning formula. Josh isn't ready for the bright lights just yet. I just don't see McD's fuming ego at work here.

My fear is that this is a 14 point per game offensive roster. The OL worries me greatly and we don't really know yet what to expect from the QB position. On the other hand, one of my hopes is that some of the offensive players prove to be better than I think they are. My other big hope is that Daboll - like Gailey - can manufacture production despite not fielding a lot of superstars with a lot of quick-hitting timing throws and good run game concepts.

Seven years ago, Chan took a smart-but-weak-armed QB, a questionable OL, and a hodge-podge group of unheralded WRs and generated 23.2 points of offense per game. What can Daboll do with a similar challenge?

The safe thing to do is to stand pat with mediocrity. That’s not Beane’s approach. in any case, Beane knows there are a few vet punters looking for work if the kid can’t handle the big time. But his leg looks live enough on his highlight reel.

We have a porous OL and only two QBs on the roster. So why not take a look-see in case we need a QB later in the season? I personally want a GM who does thorough due diligence.

I actually think this is a really good question. Tyrod threw a better deep ball and had mad scrambling skills - which can be useful behind a porous OL. Peterman makes better pre snap reads, throws over the middle better, and gets the ball out quicker. I don't feel like we know yet how this all adds up. I'm still undecided on the question if Peterman is an upgrade or not. And even if Peterman is an upgrade, the OL still scares me. I worry about this offense scoring enough points to win games.

You can actually - up to a point. And you can learn on the practice field and in the QB room. Josh needs some of that. He's especially got to improve his pre-snap reads. That requires more time studying film.

$50 million in dead cap is hard to overcome.

I’d be excited if we a good OL. It’s hard to scheme your way around a bad line, though Gailey could to it to a degree.

It seems like AJ would have been #3 on the depth chart if he hadn’t been traded. His salary was wasted regardless- unless this OL gets both Peterman and Allen injured. It’s one of those things where it was a good idea at the time to sign AJ. But now I’m glad we got what we did.

The reports coming out of Cleveland about Coleman weren't encouraging: didn't study the playbook, sometimes didn't even know where to line up, didn't always show effort in practice... DIdn't sound like a McD kind of guy. If he's cut, I won't be surprised.

Agreed. Peterman makes the line look better by making better pre-snap reads and faster decisions & throws. But I also agree with Lombardi that Peterman shouldn't start because the line is horrible. He should start because he's done the best job behind that horrible line. I began this year saying that AJ is the present, Allen is the future, and Peterman is the odd man out. But I don't know how we can ignore the preseason. So far the offense works best when Peterman is under center. Allen, on the other hand, has shown potential. I think he ought to be the starter once he shows he can consistently make quick, good decisions with the ball. That may be later this season but it's not today.

At the beginning of camp, I said that AJ was the short-term solution, Allen was the long-term solution, and Peterman was the odd man out. Now it looks like Peterman just may be our opening day starter.

So what the BN gives us now is "some soft, sterilized version" of the truth? And Bucky & Sully were the heroes who delivered the real truth? I guess it makes them feel better to see the world that way. "Nobody needed to remind me that Buffalo fans are among the most resilient in sports. But they shouldn’t be taken for fools, either. They watch the games. They know the score. They deserve an honest assessment rather than some soft, sterilized version that has been designed to paint a happy face for the sake of selling subscriptions."

Not picking on you, HappyDays, but why is Rapoport's opinion worthy of a separate thread? Josh Allen's readiness has been much discussed in other threads by people more knowledgeable of the Bills & Allen than Ian Rapoport.

In between the rhetoric, all we actually learned was that Terry was worried about Trump. Given Trump’s interest in the NFL and anthem protests, that worry seems legitimate.

If you want a good advocate for the other side of the argument, start with ST who's being unfairly crucified in this thread. When your offensive lineman are overmatched and repeatedly lose their one-on-one battles - even in preseason - it's not a good sign for the regular season. Games are won and lost in the trenches. Good teams usually have a Pro Bowler or two on the line. We have borderline starters and guys who ought to be backups. I like the OP's optimism (and thanks for your service!). I even like Beane and think he's done many good things. But it's been perplexing to watch OBD ignore the OL after Wood and Incognito left. Do they know something we don't? Or was yesterday a precursor of what we can expect this season? I haven't lost hope yet. I still think scheme and lineup changes might be able to mask or overcome some of the problems we saw yesterday. At the same time, I get SoTier's pessimism.

The players I recall who created the most anticipation... O.J. I was only 10 years old when he was drafted but I still remember the hoopla even though my immediate family in Cheektowaga were not football fans. Everyone else in the neighborhood, and many of my friends in the 5th grade, were talking excitedly about OJ. OJ was the overall first pick in the draft and a transcendent talent. And in those days, RBs were considered as important - maybe more important - than QBs. Kelly. The thing about Kelly was that he was a star in college and again in the USFL. In other words, there were few who doubted his talent. We just knew he was going to be a star. And both of these guys came us when we really needed a savior. OJ was drafted after a 1 win season. Kelly came to us after back to back 2 win seasons. Anticipation in both cases was sky high.

LaCanfora doesn't just make stuff up - or at least I don't think he does. His problem is that he relies on sources of questionable credibility. So he's sometimes right - and sometime very wrong. I don't think it's clear at all that he's got someone in the know with the Bills. Didn't LaCanfora once say that we were trading Shady? And he kept predicting we'd fire Rex until we did. Well, eventually we were going to fire Rex. That was a given. It wasn't a surprise. Nor was Whaley's firing. I really think LaCanfora's sources are often people who are just speculating and happen to speculate right once in a while. LaCanfora is effectively a gossip columnist and sometimes the rumors he repeats are true. So maybe his report about us seeking a trade for Mack are correct but I wouldn't bet the farm on it just because LaCan tweeted it out.

The analyses in the article seem very superficial. I trust some of my fellow posters more than the national media guys who only have a cursory knowledge of our players.

I don't see the comparison but I love the optimism.