ctk232

Okay, I'm sorry, but Barkley is just not that guy, nor is he better than Peterman, same trash different look. The biggest complaint about Barkley was his noodle arm and inaccuracy. It'll be the same thing just a guy wearing a different number. None of the QBs beyond Allen currently belong on the roster - Anderson only so due to the need for coaching, apparently we can't hire coaches so we have to sign players to coach...our best bet is to sign a released QB in the offseason. Bucs may not actually pick up Winstons 5th year, but may try to offload him - I'd still prefer Allen (though some may disagree), but even if it doesn't happen, we have a whole offseason to worry about QB2...emphasis on 2 - no need to fill it in now by any means.

History could very well repeat itself - the parallels are certainly there, but the final score would have to be 9-6 because I think our offense forgot what double digits are.

I agree with this but for different reasons more so in line with developing Allen properly and not rushing him back after injury. You lost me at the call for the FO's jobs, though I certainly understand the frustration. Yep - weirdly enough I'd also play McCown over Darnold if you were trying to win. No reason to play Allen or Darnold if they aren't 100%; we'll see the rookies play in December anyway for whatever that will be worth. When tickets are cheaper than the beer...

It's more so the yards per attempt that gets people worked up, even beyond the INTs. 3.86 yards per attempt, and 189 total yards on a staggering 49 attempts? S*** cray. Tangent warning and very much against my own opinions put forth on this thread: I do feel for the guy - he had a rough debut against the Chargers and I'm not sure has ever fully recovered. Then, to put the expectation of starting week one in his second season after being drafted in the 5th round seemed out of left field. Regardless of what he showed you in the preseason, I wonder how many 5th round QB picks were starting by week 1 of their second year...I don't mean to say this in support of the "Fire McD/Beane" squad or the "Nate should stay" apostles - to be honest I don't think he has the skill to be an NFL QB, but if I'm attempting objective thought here, I wonder if the kid could have been/maybe still could be a solid or even great back up in the league given his ceiling and was "ruined" by how he was handled his first two years. Much in the way the conversation takes place around Allen, one could argue the way Peterman was handled inhibited his chances of ever being a quality back up in the league, and was never given the chance to develop the way a 5th round pick needs to, before being put anywhere remotely near a live game situation that doesn't absolutely call for it. I also weirdly wonder how much we can fully evaluate Peterman in this offense, similar to the points argued in the Allen conversations. Not like I think he'll be the next Brady, but in terms of being a longterm backup option at most...

Build a new stadium, make it a dome or retractable and you'll never have to deal with this again. Only non-personnel move that will help us out here.

I wish there were more of this type of analysis out there - similar to what Romo does as a color commentator, it's the quality of the analysis that surprises people. I know Cover 1 actually provides some great x's and o's reads, and I have read a few of Farrar's pieces that make pertinent comments on trends in the NFL, or in reference to a specific trend, from perspectives that aren't typically considered or known by armchair coaches and fans. I get the media has to appeal to the widest audience, but I think too much of the "analysis" seen on ESPN and it's subsidiaries gets watered-down and recycled, speaks too generally, and often says nothing of substance at all. To be honest, I think even the most uneducated football fan would appreciate the type of perspective that Romo gives in live games, or Farrar to written analysis as it actually explains what we see on Sunday, and why things happen the way they do that would otherwise drive us mad trying to figure out - it also provides the appropriate context to errors, misreads, and mistakes that we would typically sit at home and say "this or that should have happened."

Great read - better than most of what gets posted on here at least. But certainly an interesting take from the defensive perspective. Most are more ready to attribute the current offensive-defensive disparity to the increased regulations and rule changes surrounding the defense and benefiting offensive passing, and while it isn't false, it doesn't seem to be the real reason defenses are failing more in the NFL today. It's always been the case in the NFL that the disparity between the sides of the ball ebbs and flows as the league commits to various philosophies on a wider scale. In the past five years we've seen a shift to a new style of offense that the article points out, and the defensive minds haven't yet caught up. The person who comes out with the next hybrid zone/man scheme, or dynamic coverage will be coined the "modern defensive guru" just like people are calling McVay the "modern offensive guru." What's funny is when defensive schemes/coverages finally catch up, whoever that defensive guru is that gets knighted will change the media landscape, and this board will be clamoring for a "modern defensive minded coach," just like we now yearn for a McVay. When in reality we just want what we don't have and correlate the words, "young" and "offensive-minded" as automatically attributable to offensive success. What I really appreciated from the article was actually in reference to the offense and it's perspective on Andy Reid's personnel choices in establishing a spread offense, and drafting his QB to fit the scheme. What's interesting is that the scheme looks to have been developed while Alex Smith was still QB1, and Reid wanted to introduce more of that philosophy given his QB and roster. In finally putting together a playbook, he went out and got his QB that fit the scheme and was already comfortable in the situation they were trying to establish. While one can argue that plenty of coaching and assistance went into Mahomes first year to get him to where he is now, it appears that the scheme actually preceded the player here, and makes for an interesting comment regarding the touted philosophy of "fitting your scheme to the players," which I personally believe in as well. Weird to say, but looking forward to part 2 of this article. Might just be the lack of any substantial topics being discussed or variance in perspective, but appreciate the post here! Update: Meant to add a line about McD in reference to defenses of the future. I don't think our current D reflects the changes seemingly required by what's stated in the article, but I do believe McD is instituting a defense with coverage disguises that even Bill Belicheck had to respect and credit. Should his tenure extend, I just hope he is open to changing his defense fundamentally through the years to accommodate and counter the growth of the NFL motion/spread offense schemes we're seeing from the Rams and Chiefs.

Gaines didn't exactly earn the job in the offseason as we all thought Vontae would pan out at DB2, despite some on here correctly predicting his age making him irrelevant. But when Vontae quit, Gaines was next on the depth chart that had earned his place there, and became a regular replacement that was only really worked into our nickel sets before then. I know people don't ever want to do it, but gotta give credit to McD for letting him go mid-season and start testing out the depth and roster with Lewis and Wallace. I just hope this doesn't mean we get more big nickel instead of seeing more Lewis, Taron, and Wallace...

http://www.nflpenalties.com/team/buffalo-bills?year=2018&view=games ^This is probably a slightly better for game by game breakdown, plus separating out defensive v offensive penalties - McD responsible for both, but our offense seems to be more the culprit here. Surprise surprise.

I hope so - if we could land N'keal Harry and a starting/year two starter OL by doing that I'm all for it. The only wrench is a top 5 pick, do we trade down, take Oliver/Bosa/BPA if available, go Greg Little, reach for Harry unless he keeps rising? I'd much rather they address OL in FA given the crop available, likely unpopular, but I'm okay overpaying Paradis and Saffold to bolster the line...

I don't think he's responsible for the current stats, but you can't also say he gives Allen the highest ceiling of development either. We desperately need someone who doesn't just understand the QB position, but is an actual teacher. Allen is too raw of a QB and too significant to the franchise to not invest in someone who can really bring him into the NFL. It arguably takes more than just a QB coach and would love to see it reflected in our OC as well, but I'm growing more and more concerned with that supporting cast.

So while I agree to a point, you have to keep in mind that while there is definite correlation there, you're implying causation. You can create lists to support your beliefs as much as you want: mike tomlin, marvin lewis, dan quinn, ron rivera, AND bill belichick all DCs before their success, John Harbaugh was a ST coach, just to name a few. You can also create a list of offensive minded coaches currently struggling to counter on the other end as well: Jason Garrett, Adam Gase, Pat Shurmur, even Kyle Shanahan who we seem to love after one game by Mullens, and Dirk Koetter. Point is there's a lot that goes into an HC being successful, and it is true that a defensive minded coach is likely not going to have the best offensive mind, but that isn't a blanket argument you can use to discredit an HC of any background.

It's kind of funny to mention that - I've mentioned a few times two of my mates from undergrad are bucs fans and we all convene remotely on sundays to collectively grieve about our teams (other party is a Jets fan). But the topic gets mentioned almost weekly that the Bucs and Bills are exact opposites of each other, yet very comparable. The Bucs have an offense with, albeit, Fitz at QB but still right sight better than our current stable of QBs, but absolutely no defense. The way we act about our offense, Bucs fans are acting equally so about their Defense. It's a pretty pathetic defense to say the least, as are some of the comments. And we all know what the Bills have. I always say I'd take the Bucs situation over the Bills any day in those conversations, as it's at least fun to watch. But what's funny is they've won 3 games to our 2. And while they have a bye week on us, the end result isn't all that different. Now the Bucs don't have a top 5 offense, but top 5 offense and bottom 5 defense only get you so far until your offense just can't keep up anymore. Case example: the jags made it to the conference championship on the backs of a defense last year - I mean, Blake Bortles? Really? Does anyone really think it was Bortles that got the Jags that far last year? The only real difference the switched scenarios would have here is that it'd be an easier pill for us to swallow every week watching the Bills, and maybe we have one more win than we do. But in reality, and quite obviously, you need both to compete - while it's just simply easier for offenses to move the ball in the current NFL the actual reality of that translating into results of W's v. L's is varied thanks to teams like the Jags. While they are fewer and far between, defense is not irrelevant to having success in today's NFL and this whole thread is a year too early. Let's talk about the offense when we've actually built the damn offense...it doesn't matter where we start until we end up where we've intended - and no GM, no matter how bad, intends to only have half of a football team.

Right? The one stat he missed, 3.86 yds per attempt. There is no way in the current NFL this is remotely okay. Congrats, 63% completion on throws under 5 yards. He can read all the coverages he wants, doesn't matter in the least if he never completes passes through them.

Because the thread was about Peterman? In an attempt to keep this thread topically relevant while responding to another poster, I was commenting on Peterman's performance, which was appalling in and of itself with 3.86 yards per attempt...among other issues noted. I'm not sure why you think this is the game being talked about, as if the discourse surrounding Peterman hadn't already existed prior to this point in time - but while he was only accountable for one of the three INTs, his paltry performance was the common denominator nonetheless. I don't need to look at tape to tell you how bad Peterman was - my comment on watching tape was to find the play where we ran three slant routes R to L and all three receivers ended up 5 yards from each other. I wanted to see how much of that play was interfered and influenced by defensive coverage and how much was just horrific playcalling. Daboll has caused me more concern than comfort but I've still resolved to reserve judgment until we have an actual offense. Despite the red flags I've been seeing, I can't tell how much of what we are seeing belongs to each factor: i.e. WR corps, OC, QB, OL, etc. - i get it's all of these things, but how much is contributory to each I wonder. All that said, Peterman most certainly wasn't the only problem on Sunday, that much is known and has been known. I also mention later on in this thread that while I don't believe Peterman belongs on an NFL roster, he is still the best option we have at QB right now to make us as competitive as we possibly could be given the current state of things. Barkley will not fair any better, not just because of the offense but because Barkley is flaming hot refuse. The offense is historically bad, but I'm of the conclusion that while I would like to watch more competitive games this year, my focus was on next season about four weeks ago, even when Allen was playing. The only point to this season, for me at least, was seeing how the rookies developed, not expecting more than 4 wins, and being pleasantly surprised by anything more than that. Went to the Minnesota game and had the time of my life - went home and watched the absolute s***show against GB and still had fun watching our rookies struggle and develop into better players. Point is, this was never going to be a team to contend for a playoff berth this year, so the only reason I can find for all this irrational anger (felt by myself too after sundays), is how historically bad the performances have been. I bet anything McD/Beane and Pegs all knew we weren't going back to the playoffs this year, but I also bet they intended for us to compete better than this. Yes, the problem was choosing b/t McCarron and Peterman as our starter - not Peterman over McCarron. McCarron is a complete dumpster and would've given us the same results in a different manner. The problem was only having those two to pick from to begin with. But I'm going to wait for this regime to assemble an offense and show us what their intentions are on the offensive side of the ball and see where it goes before crying that McD should go. I'm skeptical and concerned, but just being realistic as well. This process started off in the right direction, we got a playoff berth and monkey off the back, we have the makings of an elite defense, now let's see what we can do with the offense.

That's really all I was hoping this would be about, so we don't turn this into another "McD/Beane bumbled the QB situation" thread. But I agree, I've never been a fan of "QB competitions" both in theory and in practice. In theory, you create competition forcing QBs to show you their best and allow you to make the most informed position. They in fact, do the exact opposite for the reasons you list. Minimal time spent with the ones limits what translatable play you see from QBs as it doesn't provide them time enough to sync with their WRs and TEs with timing, catch radius, ball placement, etc. - doesn't allow for them to mesh with the OL and to exchange pocket behavior and communication, and it doesn't create any sense of continuity for anyone on the team beyond the position. Your skill players and OL can't form functioning relationships with your starter and it usually creates a slow start to the season, often times below .500. They also create unnecessary media circuses where you generate mostly anticipatory expectations that whoever does win the job can never live up to. And the inevitable struggles of finally receiving consistent first team reps become exacerbated by the fact that everyone is surprised this "guy won the job." Perhaps the biggest example is that it is really easy to be fooled by camp and the preseason beyond what game experience has shown. Not that QBs can't get better, but any QB that still needs to get better has no place "competing" for any starting job. Coach needs to set the roster going into camp, regardless of potential of anyone else to "earn" the job.

Then we're arguing the same thing, in a way - while I don't believe that NP is a better NFL QB than anyone on that list, I agree that no other QB we can bring in right now would do any better, outside of likely Bridgewater, TT, McCown, Foles, etc. They also can't be brought in right now fwiw, but NP is currently our best option until Allen returns healthy as he at least knows the playbook, but I trust most of the QBs on this list to at least lead a drive and throw a TD. Granted, I will concede Peterman did this for us in Houston. But I do believe that if most any other QB on that list were on our team at the beginning of the season, that they would be markedly better than Peterman at fulfilling a back-up role. Not necessarily going .500, but helping us to compete more so than we are at present and certainly able to throw and complete at least 1 passing TD, or help us put up more than single digit scores. Where I would most like to agree but just don't have enough to point to and say he's the issue for certain, is with Daboll and the playcalling. While I get that the offensive troubles are overarching and from every position, I don't know how much of this is actually Daboll's playcalling/playbook, and how much of it is the lack of QB talent and consequential roster talent depth that forces him to limit the calls/book. The one thing I've read countless times on this board is everything that is wrong with the offense...it's everything. But how much of what we are seeing is contributory to each specific reason (i.e. how much of it is the receivers? how much of it the QB? or how much of it is actually the playbook?). They can all contribute to the problems at hand, but in order to address these issues you have to systemically understand what is causing the greatest amount of problems (which I know people will just say McD/Beane)...

It's because some think we're the only ones who see the Bills having an historically awful offense, and that, because it doesn't get better within the same season we have no accountability in the FO. Despite the fact that regardless of our opinions of McD, Beane, and the Pegulas, they are all professionals who are capable of seeing the current state of the team and formulating a plan. But because we're apparently the only ones who can see it, and it doesn't get fixed/become serviceable within a week that coaches need to go because the team isn't accountable to the feelings/opinions/ill-informed observations of the fans...

Really confused by this response. But sure, to answer your question, all of those names are recognizable to me with the exception of the emboldened. I'm also curious where you got this list and if they are all QB2's on the depth chart, but regardless, my point was that to be a good backup in the league, you cannot also still be learning the game at this level. It's just not something that's physically possible - is Peterman as good a backup in the league as any, or is he still underdeveloped and "learning the game?" The latter sounds more of an excuse for his actual play thus far being as bad as it is. Given performance thus far, Peterman is the worst QB on the entire list, statistically speaking. If you are arguing that he is both still developing and just that terrible, and that the entire list you gave is all QBs of equal caliber, talent, understanding of the game, and performance, then I'm just not seeing what you see. I'd take most every other name on that list over Peterman with the exception of the guys I don't know. But even that unknown is better than the known ceiling of development that Peterman has.

That should tell you most of it really, neither bad nor good - I noticed he was on the field at one point, and of the handful of plays where I focused on him, saw some good flashes on a couple rushing downs, and serviceable play in pass pro, but overall was struggling as expected. I don't know that I saw all of his plays, though, and have been waiting for the All-22 to see if my eyeball assessments were the least bit on point. PAY Paradis, just pay him - he might not be worth the eventual offer, but he's worth being on our team next year because we desperately need something more than a plug at Center. Would like to add Saffold or another interior guy as well if we can. Would be great to see what Dawkins could do at swing guard and LG over LT, but his play thus far has made me hopeful for his development.

I'm not singling out Peterman for yesterday's loss. Let's start there. I also get that he's still learning to play the game at this level - not many people still do. But the problem is that he was set up to start Week 1, which whether or not it was a good decision, has changed the conversation around him. I'm not surprised by his play being a 5th round pick, but I don't think his ceiling is one so high that it can really get much better than what we're seeing. I also don't understand how you can say he's learning the game at this level and that he's also right there when you consider other QB backups in the league - this just isn't possible. What are you basing this on? His QBR is one of the worst of all time, if not the worst, and he's set all kinds of horrible records. His passer rating from yesterday was 45.4, I don't care that he was only "responsible" for one of the three picks yesterday, he's not a back-up caliber QB. He completed 63% of his passes for a whopping 3.86 yards per attempt...he lacks the arm strength for outside throws and timed routes, on which he's already hesitant to complete and target. He's not in an offense that would otherwise help him out, no, but a competent QB is able to do more than achieve one rushing touchdown yesterday. It's hard to argue your point(s) here as there are essentially two conflicting positions, but the reality is he is not currently a good back-up QB, and yes he is still learning the game but with a much lower ceiling than you may believe he has. Neither of which is inspiring for his resulting development and performance on this roster. The NFL typically qualifies an average back-up QB as someone who can come in and go .500 in W-L keeping the team afloat. It's not a written rule, but I doubt Peterman's ability to do this. My own expectations are for a back-up are a bit lower, but while I'm fine with Peterman taking us to the first overall pick this year, I will not say he is a longterm solution for us at any level of QB depth.

He hasn't lost anything - players play for money. While I agree Buffalo isn't the sexiest destination for players, we've learned what happens when we go big in FA, as well as other teams. But if you present the money, players will come to play. To OP's point about breeding a losing culture, a single rebuild doesn't build a losing culture. One season, does not build a losing culture. Losing four super bowls in a row and having the past 20+ years happen can breed a losing culture. Thing about breeding is that it takes time. And while the national media has never helped us in this regard, what creates true losing cultures is multiple "rebuilds" of 2-3 year stints. In regard to "losing cultures," all it takes is for a team to start winning and the entire national media conversation changes. Jags were a laughing stock of a yearly game, and now they're in the competitive conversations. I'd go as far to make the argument that "losing cultures" are really self-imposed and don't exist, not really. Sure other cities and teams can pass the Bills or another lackluster competitor as a soft opponent, or easy-win. But most of those determinations are momentary given the immediate season. To me, "losing cultures" are often misidentified as immediate responses to terrible situations, much like the historic precedence being set on offense right now. But does this create a long-term culture of losing? No. The plan is to get better and win, just go do it and you won't ever have to talk about this again.

While true it doesn't paint a whole picture - Pats ST isn't full of talented players, good ST rosters are filled with many players, most of them solid, who do their jobs and do them well. The Pats offense and defense isn't exactly glaring with talent on either side where depth would extend to the ST squad. While your point is true, I'd argue it's more so the coaching and overall team culture to winning at all levels (offense, defense, and special teams) that creates great special teams rosters/plays. To the OP - I agree our ST has taken a few steps back this year and needs to be addressed, likely with Crossman being shown the door, but we likely get more of a shakedown here moving guys around in the offseason.

Agreed - though bet many would rather us not having to trade up for our QB last year and landing one with the #1 overall last year instead of this year. Even I think we lucked our way into the playoffs last year, but the guy coached a partial roster to 9 wins with Rico and TT. We did perform last year beyond luck - the Bills' luck never lasts 17 full weeks.

I'd like to see how this FO handles the the upcoming offseason, which ironically enough, we actually never left since we lost to the Jags - offseason 2018 still going strong into November. But regardless of how much they win or lose this offseason, I think a football minded executive close to ownership helping to call those shots is most necessary and warranted. I'm not sold on the Pegulas doing much for sports franchises beyond the wallet. They haven't been terrible owners, but our FO could use a bit more guidance in that realm. I wonder if losing Brian Gaine is/will be a big loss in terms of personnel development/scouting/roster mgmt as well