Rocky Landing

Not learn bad habits behind a terrible O-line that can't offer adequate protection, and wide receivers that can't get separation, or make plays.

A) This misrepresents my position. What I have said is that it is easier to bench Barkley than it is Allen. (Do you disagree with this?) We don't have to worry about Barkley's development. I have also said that Barkley, at the moment, gives us the best chance of winning. And, I see no reason to assume Barkley is going to suck. That assumption reads like a mere justification for your position. If Allen gave us a better chance of winning, that might be an indication that he is ready to take the field. B) Again, I don't agree with the notion that you don't learn from the bench, and that would include learning opposing defenses. Be that as it may, I'd love to know why they are something Allen "absolutely needs to learn quickly." I also will continue to maintain that developing behind a really crappy O-line (which is what we have), and piss-poor WRs (which we also have) is a really good way of learning bad habits. C) Lots of people on this site have said that winning doesn't matter this season. Lots of them. The reasoning is that it is more important for Allen to start in a losing effort than for Barkley to start even if that gives us a better chance to win. How am I moving the goal posts? And, yes I want to watch the Bills win every Sunday. But, I don't believe that is a fool's mission, even if we don't make the playoffs. In fact, even if we are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, because I believe that is part of building a winning culture. And here is my point about when Allen should start: He should start when he gives us a better chance to win. That's how you foster a winning culture. D) Giving up on the regular season before it is over-- before we are even eliminated from the playoffs-- is the defeatist attitude of a losing culture. This culture that has defined the Bills for far too long. *Yes, in the end, I am hoping for a better Sunday. Why would I deny that? Don't we all??? But, equating starting Barkley with not having a plan is a bit obnoxious. I want Barkley to start vs. the Jags, I want our O-line to continue to develop, and I want our WRs to continue to develop. If Barkley continues to play well, I want him to start the rest of the season, as Allen learns from the sideline (the plan when we drafted him). Then, next season, with a decent O-line, and receiving corps, and a better developed, and confident Josh Allen, he can move through TC and preseason without some goofy "QB competition," and start game one. Sounds like a plan to me. Just my opinion, bet we can disagree.

Such is the condition of a Bills fan. Basically, the elements of starting Allen asap that I disagree with are: A) Getting as many reps as possible in a deeply flawed team can't damage an exceptionally raw QB. B) There is no efficacy in learning from the sideline. C) Allen should be on the field before he is ready. D) Not getting Allen reps in this deeply flawed offense will damage next season. E) Winning doesn't matter.

Let me quote McDermott here: "... he's certainly grown during his time out." This contradicts some of the sentiments expressed on this thread that Allen won't develop unless he is on the field. My concern is that he gets brought along too quickly on the field with a team with WRs that he can't trust to make plays, and an O-line that can't adequately protect him. It would be a shame to see him learning to scramble too quickly, not trust the pocket, not acquire pocket presence, not be willing to sling the ball, when the situation called for it, or turn into another Captain Checkdown.

Well, my son is eight years old, and I never lie to him. Ever. I always figure that I'm not raising children-- I'm raising the adults they will become. But, he watches the games with me. He knows the deal, more or less...

Let me think about that... No.

In my opinion, building a winning culture happens by winning games, and if that means bringing along Allen more slowly, then I believe that will be better for his development in the long run. In other words, bringing up a QB in a winning team is better for that QB's development than bringing them up in a losing team. That's just my opinion. I also enjoy my Sundays better when I'm watching the Bills win, rather than lose. Again, just my opinion. I wish I could believe that Allen is a better QB, right now. I do believe he has more potential in the long run, and I don't agree with the notion that he has to be developed as quickly as possible. Personally, just from what I've seen this season, it looks to me like Barkley is a better, more developed QB who is working very well with our receivers. If I'm wrong, I also believe it would be much easier to bench Barkley than it would Allen. I think the coaches know this, as well, which is why I think they're more interested in playing Allan than winning vs. the Jags. And, I don't agree with that decision, either for building a winning culture, or developing Allen.

Nope. We're not interested in winning games this season because "It's All About Allen." If we were interested in winning games, we'd start the QB that gave us the best chance of winning.

Being a Bills fan is exhausting. At some point, this "building a winning culture by continuing to lose" strategy has to change.

Where did this notion that learning from the sidelines is no longer relevant come from? It's not a new concept, and it was the plan when we drafted him, and it was the plan at the beginning of the season. Are you honestly telling me that QBs do not develop until they step foot on the field during the regular season? And, do you honestly believe that some losing situations don't damage a QB's development? Do you not think that constantly having to scramble out of the pocket because of a crappy O-line doesn't have the potential of reinforcing bad habits? Remember Trent Edwards, aka Captain Checkdown? He didn't come out of college with that nickname.

Damn! I stopped watching and missed the comeback! I'm in Rochester visiting family (live in Los Angeles), and I was getting the stink-eye for watching a non-Buffalo related game on my first day back. It wasn't a hard game to turn off-- watching Morone's smug face was nauseating. I would really, really like to see the Bills beat them next week.

I was just watching the Steelers @ Jags. I know most on here feel like Allen should start because "this season is all about his development," and "he needs as many reps as possible," and, apparently, the plan of having him sit and learn behind a vet mentor, for some reason, no longer applies, even though we have a much more competent, and seasoned vet than we did throughout the preseason. Remember when the conventional wisdom on Allen was that he was a "project" with "lots of potential, and upside," but "needed time to develop on the sidelines?" Well, no more. Now, it makes more sense to throw Allen into the same situation that all of the Peterman apologists said unfairly ruined what could have been a perfectly unremarkable career as a mediocre backup. What's good for the goose is not what's good for the first round draft pick, apparently. We have "so much invested in him" that he should be on the field asap, regardless of how badly he, or the rest of the team flops. Supposedly, there is some logic to this notion. But, man... I wish McD and company would commit to winning the next game. And, I suspect that Barkley gives us a better chance. Watching Doug Marone's smug puss on the sidelines as the Jags' D destroy Allen, and our offense, will be hard to endure. But, for some reason, this will be good for Allen's development, or so I am told.

Huh???

Some of the same people who have argued that Peterman was “set up to fail” (literally, by playing him) are arguing that Allen should be put in the exact same position. Interesting...

We're still talking about this?

Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked, have been sacked.

Why? Is Barkley not a MUCH better vet to learn from than Peterman? Of course he is. Was Allen benched in lieu of Barkly? No. Does sitting behind a vet hurt Allen's development? No. Does it help Allen's development? Many would argue yes. There also seems to be this idea that this season is about one player, and one player only. It's not. To say it is is ludicrous. In fact, it sure wouldn't hurt this team to develop some of our WRs with some actual competent QB play-- Zay, Foster, Ray Ray, et al. Would they develop better behind Barkley, or Allen? The answer seems obvious. I've made this argument many times on this site: You don't build a winning culture by losing. And, this team is capable of winning. Barkley proved that Sunday. Personally, I would much rather watch the Bills beat the Jags, than watch them lose to get Allen an opportunity to "develop." I think it's better for the team as a whole.

The occasional refrain of "so-and-so should be fired if they don't do something-or-other" is ridiculous, and tiring. Be that as it may, there are quite a few posters these boards-- intelligent posters, whose opinions I respect-- who seem to believe that there is no question, but that Allen will start vs. the Jags, and any notion of McD rolling with Barkley is crazytalk. Other posters are making ridiculous statements like "the whole point of this seasons to develop Allen," or some such nonsense. I completely disagree. Yes, Allen's development is important. But, I have to believe that McD, Beane, and Pegula still want to win games. In my opinion, the decision on who to start will come down to who will give us the best chance to win. Barkley's performance vs. the Jets was the best QB play we have seen all year (and it's not close), and some may argue for the last couple years. And, will sitting Allen hurt his development? The WRs looked miles better with Barkley. Wouldn't it help Allen's development if when he did take the field, the WR corp were also better developed? Could Barkley help develop our piss-poor WR group? If McD decides to start Barkley vs. the Jags, it will be an easy decision to make. That is a ridiculous statement. Were that the case, there never would have been a QB competition in TC. Peterman would not have started week one, and McD would have said, right after the Jets game, that Allen would be the starter as soon as he was healthy.

But, not as close by the end of the day, eh? I don't think Allen starting vs, the Jags is a certainty at all. I believe they will be evaluating both QBs throughout the bye. If the question comes down to who gives them the best chance to win, the answer would probably be Barkley. Why would we assume that McD doesn't want to win games? Sure, Allen's development is important. The argument has also frequently been made that it would be better for his development for him to sit for a season. Starting Barkley vs. the Jags is not a difficult decision to make.

If he can play this consistently, he should be part of the equation. Our utterly pedestrian WR corp looks better today under Barkley. If they can improve, then Allen will have a much quicker learning curve working with a better developed squad once he does get on the field, whether it's this season, or the next.

Wow. Sirles isn't good.

Is it me, or do Jets fans boo their own team a lot more than other fan bases?

If Barkley can win us some games, and develop our passing game in the process, he should stay on the field.

Not sure I want to see Allen back too soon. How many throws has Barkley made today that Peterman simply can't make?

Love this McKensie