Rocky Landing

I think we'll see this in preseason. Personally, I am of the opinion that rookie QBs can both benefit by sitting behind a vet, and be damaged by being started too soon in a situation where they are likely to fail. I know that this is a subject of debate on this board. (If Peterman is able to bounce back from an historically bad rookie outing, for example, that speaks well of his mental fortitude. Such a situation can really damage a player's confidence, IMO) We know that McCarron is used to playing NFL football behind a crappy O-line-- he did it in Cincy. IMO, if McC, and Allen are more or less even, and the O-line has not gelled, then I would hope they start McC. And, I don't think that I agree with 26CB that McD's comments about Allen's readiness are completely separate from the rest of the team's readiness (although, 26CB certainly does follow these things much more closely than me). I think that Allen's readiness should, and would be evaluated vis a vis the situation he is in, which definitely does include the O-line's ability to protect him, and the WRs ability to handle the velocity, and accuracy of his throws. And, I think these evaluations are looked at differently for McCarron than they are for Allen.

This may just be getting into semantics, but one has to believe that they are assessing his readiness to lead the offense they have. It would be a lot easier to call Allen "ready" with a stable of decent WRs, and an O-line that can effectively protect him.

I think they do, too. I even find myself giving him more of the benefit of the doubt as a result of their continued faith in him-- and I have been an unforgiving Peterman hater up to this point (mostly because I was at that Chargers game-- I spent good money on those seats!) But, I also believe that they keep Peterman based on Allen's readiness. If, by the final cut, they aren't comfortable with Allen running an NFL offense, they'll keep Peterman as a back-up (assuming McCarron is the starter). If Allen wins the job, or if they would be comfortable with him as backup, I would think it's off to the PS for Peterman.

I wonder how this plays out behind the scenes, now? KB did state he had been "holding it all in." It's likely that Beane had no idea whatsoever about KB's animosity towards Newton. But now that dirty laundry has been aired, I have to believe there is going to be a serious sit-down with KB, Beane, and McD. One element that strikes me also, was the mention of burying his mother. It makes me think that there were unkind, or insensitive remarks made by Newton during that period that have stuck in KB's craw ever since, and is coming out now in this rather inarticulate fashion. Those unspoken issues are the sort of thing that can really get into someone's head, and affect their game-- especially someone with maturity issues. Maybe this becomes a learning experience for an immature KB? Or, maybe this is an indication of problems on the horizon? As a fan, I actually sort of enjoy the dramas that play out off the field. I enjoy rooting for players as people, as well as athletes. And, so far, immaturity notwithstanding, I kinda like KB. I hope this drama has a happy ending.

Pretty much one size fits all.

Yes. Mainly to my children who think if they don't acknowledge the broken TV remote, the issue will just "die quietly." But, mostly I sell donkey suits at flea markets. I'm a pro at that.

My assumption is that this all hinges on whether or not they find the perpetrators. If they do, then Shady will be either implicated, or exonerated. If they don't, them perhaps you are right.

Ugh. This interview makes me nervous. 1) He sounds whiney as hell. I'm sorry, he just does. 2) His comments show a lack of professionalism. It almost doesn't matter how bad the situation was. You just don't come out with these sorts of comments about a former teammate. It belies a lack of maturity. This will not go unnoticed in the Bills locker room. 3) What does this bode for the future? If he wasn't satisfied with Cam Newton throwing him the ball because of his accuracy issues, how's he going to feel about McCarron, or Allen, or Peterman with their, you know, accuracy issues?

The term “being thrown to the wolves” is the very definition of a subjective statement. That being said, I understand that the line between “reasons” and “excuses” is also subjective, and I’m not going to challenge a single one of your points. (But, I do feel it’s fair to point out that 5 out of 12 points of the Charger’s turnover differential came from Peterman) But, all that being said, I will say this (as I have said many times on this forum), Peterman’s five picks only tell half the story. When Tyrod came out the second half, to the exact same defense (who did NOT turn vanilla), the Bills looked like a different team. I was there. After TC, preseason, and ten weeks of the regular season, Peterman did not have enough of a grasp of the offense to lead that team in an actual game. And yet, he had given Dennison, and McDermott reason to believe he had. No one threw him to the wolves. He went willingly.

Good points, sure. (Although, were I more cynical, I might call it a list of excuses). Of course, that one stat line-- turnover differential (Chargers were +12)-- has a lot to do with Peterman.

You're going to take Mcloud over Holmes? That seems crazy.

Are you suggesting that there are enough fans who don't "see the upside and positive direction this team is headed in" to fill, not one, but multiple "massive unmarked graves?" Certainly, people have good reason to doubt the OL, and our WR corps. That seems fairly obvious. But, I don't know that I've read a single post that has predicted Allen being "a sure fire bust." Indeed, I believe there is an enormous amount of optimism in his future. And, the criticisms of Beane, and the Pegulas seem scant, at most. Or, maybe I've been reading the wrong threads.

Peterman should be fine on the PS. Considering the film on him, I doubt another team would touch him. And, in the highly unlikely event that another team poaches him, so what? In my sad, pessimistic, honest opinion, if both McCarron, and Allen are unavailable to play, the season would be sufficiently screwed that Christian Hackenberg, or Scott Tolzien, or Kellen Clemens, or Mark Sanchez could come in and fail just as spectacularly as Peterman.

Why on earth shouldn't we dissect training camp performance? If players struggle, there's a reason for it, and it makes for a worthwhile discussion. I think there is a difference between drawing conclusions, and forming opinions. And, why shouldn't we be forming opinions (or drawing conclusions, for that matter) during TC? Isn't this what fans do during TC? Otherwise, why pay attention at all?

Thrown to the wolves??? It was week 11 against a team that was 3-6 and had just lost to the Jags. How long do you wear the uniform before the opposing team stops looking like big, bad wolves?

Well, it's hard to imagine we don't have a bottom five O-line, and a bottom five WR corps. Those are two things that are going to make it hard for these QBs to shine.

It was a pretty unpopular opinion back in April, too. Although, I was not entirely alone. My thinking at the time was that the only QB worth spending significant draft capital on was Darnold, and we had no chance of getting him, and I knew Jackson would be there at 21. And, I assumed Rosen (who I did NOT like), Allen, and Mayfield would be gone by 21. Of course, I'm all in on Allen, now.

I was just mentioning Captain Checkdown. I suppose the good news is that McCarron is used to working behind a lousy O-line. Still, what can we expect with such dismal combination of a crappy O-line, and an even crappier receiving corps?

That's a pretty big issue if our O-line doesn't get it together. Still, I guess I'd rather have this rather than another Captain Checkdown.

Various media outlets have been making a lot of hay over the number of sacks our QBs have taken, especially McCarron, with a lot of criticism going towards him for holding onto the ball too long. That's been a little surprising to me as Cincy's O-line was near the bottom of the league last season. But, I still have to wonder how much of this problem is on our O-line in TC?

My hope going into the draft was that we would not trade away any of our picks, and take Lamar at 22. So, I'm interested in seeing him play.

Because I've seen Late Nate play.

I don't think Allen will start before week eight. But, I would be willing to bet a Bills hat that he doesn't start before week five.

There are several credible websites that post the spread for the various sports books. Here's a good one: http://www.vegasinsider.com/nfl/odds/las-vegas The idea is that you pick a team based on the point spread. So, a team that is favored by three points must win by more than three points for that pick. If they only win by two points, the pick goes to the other team. If they win by three points exactly, that is considered a tie. Using the spread is especially good for pools that have a lot of people participating. Otherwise, you end up with too many winners. I also have a tie-breaker in the pool I run, based on the total points scored on MNF. Cheers!

I'm down, and I say leave the Bills in. I'm assuming you would include the spread, which mitigates the problems for those who can't pick against the Bills.