ctk232

Just because he was responsible (technically) for only one of the three INTs on Sunday doesn't mean he wasn't bad. Our only TD of the day came on a QB rush...our whole offense is deplorable from the scheme to the players executing it. But to keep it Peterman specific, the guy did not get through his reads effectively at all (something that was supposed to be one of his stronger suits), didn't complete throws, and yes, had quite a few key dropped passes from his receivers, but it wasn't like he was driving us down the field otherwise by making accurate throws and reads. He was hesitant to pull the trigger due to past INT issues and missed the few open windows we had on a good amount of the drives; held the ball to long and took sacks. But at least he did do one thing, he discovered the incomplete pass. Doesn't help when the OL doesn't show up either and has a day like yesterday. I need to go back and watch the tape to see when it was, but I remember seeing a replay of three simultaneous slant routes where all three receivers practically all ended up within 5 yards of each other, and KB was covered downfield. I really need to go find this play because for the life of me I couldn't figure out who was the hot route, much less what offensive mind thought that play would gain yards...and I'm still on the give Daboll another year boat.

After going back and readying through, I see more posts falling between 6-10 to 7-9/8-8. But the 8-8/9-7 playoff crowd, while present, wasn't prevalent. Then there were of course the optimist threads where everyone was saying if Peterman is the guy, then I say we fair better. But even while being fooled by Peterman for a whole week leading up to Baltimore, you had to know this season was never going to yield more than 7 wins. First year OC, terrible QB crop, no wr corps, and we lost the best 3/5ths of our OL. Yet people were still nitpicking the roster and schedule saying a lot of "ifs and could be's" - which don't exactly inspire me to say most were expecting to be competitive. And for sure - no one expected it to be historically bad though, some thought it'd be garbage, but don't know that anyone said historically bad...

We have one in KB tbh...wouldn't say premier of course but he'd likely fit the role better than Clay for pass catching purposes. I agree we need a TE and everything here except it's priority over WR. Get the number one on the team through the draft (my own selfish hopes for Harry), get him developing with Allen behind an OL and fill out with TE talent in FA and/or draft.

Keep him, I get it's essentially a second chance not many think he deserves, but sign him to a year extension (he probably won't take it anyway). But even if we draft NKeal Harry, keep him. Bring in more WR talent in FA if possible without overpaying, but put KB in a hybrid TE role, or have him in mismatches against DBs and Safeties and scheme him into as many 1 v 1 matchups as you can. We have no one demanding coverage in our corps and KB thrives on the 1v1 jump ball, but put him in this role and I suspect you see different results. He's likely not worth the price tag for this functionality, but we are in no position to start cutting any WRs. Get as much talent and personnel as you can and go from there keeping what you want, even if we net two WRs this offseason, keep as much in the corps to figure out who all stays and who goes.

Everyone who at least had an idea of the talent we were bringing into the season...Peterman and Allen were our QBs going into Day 1, we lost our two best OL men and traded another, and our WR corps hasn't performed in a couple years. Our defense has finally started to click, but what about our moves this offseason read to anyone more than 4-12? The prediction boards were filled with blind optimists clinging to the faintest possibility that we could compete "if this happens, and that goes this way, then we'll be alright" - there was only ever one way this season was going to go. Not to knock as I too had some confidence before Baltimore that this season may not be that bad, and I was most certainly fooled by Peterman's preseason. But even so, this was always the season we were going to have. There's no point in arguing that. I don't mean this all to excuse what you are seeing, not in the least - but rather just point out the blatant reality that this was always the dumpsterfire that we were going to see based upon everything that happened after January 2018.

From another game, was watching UT vs WVU and Collin Johnson would be a great 3/4 round WR pick up with big size and solid speed - don't know if he'll declare in his 3rd year, but it would be something to have both him and Harry coming into the corps next year if it could happen.

Now that's a good debate worth a thread - even though it's basically what all these threads turn into, there is good debate to be had around that subject of whether or not we needed to. And the plan is still rebuild and win (at least publicly) - we just aren't doing the winning part.

Okay, but that's what a rebuild is. And like I said before, no GM or HC will actively come out and say that they are actively losing, or even comment on the matter beyond "we need to get better at many spots" and the many variations on that. Also, when an news article puts the word "rebuilding" in quotations, that means that the person being referenced/interviewed said it. Brackets mean it was implied/replaced, and everything not in either is paraphrasing. Even with a semantic argument like that your point doesn't hold. He said we were in a rebuild then, and it's plain as day that's the plan - you don't have to talk about losing or getting worse to say you are in a rebuild. This is what that look like.

I'm confused - didn't they sign McCarron prior to drafting Allen? Might just be how I'm reading the first part, but the chronology seems off there. Second to the second passage emboldened - you're claiming, based off of pure speculation as far as I can tell and research, that McD and Beane brought in McCarron for the sole purpose of making Peterman the starter? Thereby risking their entire future on a conspiracy to start a 5th round pick? Even after the fact that they said McCarron wasn't the QB they thought he was, and clearly isn't, AND he also got injured prior to starting the season. Even I question not keeping him on the roster at that time but this conspiracy is fairly illogical. I mean, say what you will about McD but the likelihood of him basing a decision off of pure pride and as you've stated, sabotage, is just lunacy.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000928588/article/bills-gm-beane-says-team-is-rebuilding-we-have-needs ^On April 25, 2018. In case you don't feel like reading, "It's a natural assumption that the Bills plan to move up in the draft, Beane acknowledged to NFL Network's Aditi Kinkhabwala, but in his mind the roster is still in "rebuilding" mode and yet to "arrive" as a contender. Was said before this mess of a season even happened. Not every team needs a rebuild, did you see how the three teams you mentioned kind of already had franchise QBs that have arguably been in the top 10, if not top 5 at the position in the league for the past decade? The best QB we had in that time was TT, so yea, it's going to be a rebuild.

So the funny thing about that is our WR corps would be infinitely better off with him accepting that 3 yr deal. Not his fault, but he did have the choice - people can be angry with him for making the right choice. Just hate that those stories then get published - not like we need the national media attention of how no one wants to play here and how we have to overpay every FA we bring in just to have positive net gains on player flow.

Both Beane and McD have publicly said we're in a rebuild, and this is what rebuilds look like? I'm not sure of the confusion. A rebuild is not to go 8-8, make 3-5 player moves and start to compete. If your FO says that they are going into a rebuild and making a lot of personnel moves, and you believe that this team is also going to compete, regardless of who said it, then I'm sorry for the massive let down for you that was this season. Can you imagine what the PR backlash would be if they didn't publicly say they were still trying to compete? Even the winless teams of the past, and the Curtis Painter Colts said they were "competing" all the while tanking for Andrew Luck. It's not uncommon, just takes various forms and durations. And no team can publicly say that they "aren't competing" without the NFL execs coming down on them to save face, and losing their fanbase - yet it happens. But to think the team that lucked into the playoffs last year in a year when league performance was at an all time high in terms of parity amongst teams, then you definitely would have had extremely misled expectations for how this year was to go.

The only caveat being in this scenario you can still draft better to get the team over the playoff bubble hump and perennially compete. Though I agree - the Bills franchise was perpetuating mediocrity, even with solid draft picks. However, we didn't start to hit on our late draft picks until these past two drafts, and even then only with Milano and Taron (not nothing). But I wonder what we could have if we retained at least a bit more offensive talent. No one is arguing this offense isn't that bad, their absolutely horrific, but I feel that most of the reactions here are to that point and not about tanking. It's an utter lack of presence on the offensive side of the ball, and people can't handle it for one season (I get why). In my mind, it's not fun to watch either, but I get that it's part of a rebuild and this, while exceptional, is what was said would happen and what we have to move forward with. I also believe the intention was to tank last year and not have to trade up for their top QB (likely not Allen if we land a top 3 pick) - our defense just played lights out and McD/Beane decided to commit to the playoff run a la bringing in KB. And so we did, and now they've had to work with continuing a rebuild off of a playoff year. That's why you see what's happening in Oakland in Gruden's first year. The Bills just happened to have this 18 year monkey on our backs that the FO decided would be better off removed moving forward than getting a higher pick. To the point of this thread however, it's not a past case study, but if you want an example of a worse offense and more comprehensive tank - look no further than Oakland. It's likely Gruden doesn't want Carr long term, and if anything would have offloaded him pre-trade deadline if he wasn't about to get run out of town and be the first coach investigated for actively attempting to lose (yes, hyperbole). Both teams playing last night only had one win, someone had to come out of it with two, but the Bills aren't alone in this rebuild. Gruden was out there smiling when he increased his point deficit by 27+ and came out today promising to build a title team - it's a tank.

To be fair, to answer the question, "Will Peterman play well on Sunday?" with either "supporter," "not a big fan," or "get rid of him already," doesn't actually answer the question. I get the responses were edited to reflect the answers here. So, to your assessment as someone who voted "not a big fan," I do have hope and would love to see him succeed and somehow earn a spot as the back-up on this roster. I'm skeptical given the fact that he's been through more than most QBs drafted in the 5th round two years ago go through, and certainly has had ridiculous expectations put on him given that context. Starting him week 1 didn't help with those expectations, and is certainly erroneous to the question of how I feel about him on the roster. But given what is tangible thus far, I'm indifferent to him being on the roster if a better option comes along at back-up. Barkley is not that guy, nor is Anderson who is more a coach than a player anyway.

Only if Barkley is cheaper - and when Allen is healthy cut Barkley. He's Peterman 2.0 in case everyone forgot he has no arm strength and prefers throwing the ball to the opposing team. Since he was drafted in 2013, Barkley was traded for a 7th round pick, got beat out by Beathard, and has played on almost as many different teams as games he's played. Actually, he pre-dates Peterman, so Peterman is Barkley 2.0? Either way... We're better off setting up a juggs machine from wherever we start our drives and just letting it rip from there - would achieve the same effect but likely for a much lighter cap hit. Edit: I feel like I should add the fact that I don't actually hate Peterman and I DO want him to succeed, as early as this Sunday. I get the above seems to say otherwise, but I'd prefer Peterman to Barkley if I'm being honest.

Barkley is deplorable...there are reasons these guys are available and haven't played in the league in the past year. Barkley has started 11 games in his career since entering the league and has nearly played for as many teams. He's been traded for a 7th round pick, was beaten out for a job by CJ Beathard, and is an INT or two away from Peterman's ratio in twice as many games played. We have not, and will not sign our veteran back-up, or any serviceable back-up this year. Better to put your hopes in next season and the process in all honesty, not in the abandoned animals we're signing.

Not to be the wet towel/pessimist here, but he did say "no too far off from throwing" - but throwing doesn't equate to being ready to play again. Given that Beane publically didn't rule out the possibility of Allen being out for the season when asked, they could still very well have him "throw" the rest of the season, but just in practice and let him sit. The only things preventing me from saying this will happen is that 1) the season is all but over and Allen could use this time to develop without the added pressure of having to win out the rest of the season; and 2) the utter mutiny that will occur from posters on this board if we weren't to play him again this season. I get wanting him to get back into game exposure, but pretty sure they also don't want to rush their future job security back into games too soon. Either way, since the thread devolved into another "what to do about allen and the QB situation" - it's not like it matters.

Still believe he was always a better back up option than McCarron, Peterman, Anderson, and now Barkley. I get some people on here disagree for non-football reasons, but I'm all for it.

On some throws it appears that way, but if you look on a few of his INTs (since there are so many) he does actually make the correct read but just can't get the ball there on time. While an outlier, the TD to Zay is a perfect example. The kid is no where near perfect, sorry if that's the impression you got. It's not like Allen has perfect physical attributes either (i.e. footwork, striding, pocket movement, etc.) - but for two essentially rookie QBs they seem to be two halves of a single undeveloped rookie QB.

What's crazy is that to me it seems like we have two halves of a whole QB between Allen and Peterman. Nate has at least shown that he can get through his reads quicker, and typically more efficiently in identifying coverages, but he lacks the physical talent and skills to convert on those read successes. Whereas Allen is the complete opposite having the physical attributes to do it all at the position, but just doesn't understand read concepts, coverages, and schemes. I'm sure many will disagree, especially in regards to Peterman, but just happens to be the way I see it.

Word - the binary oppositions on this board can become suffocating at times. There's no reason to be one v. the other, but the reality is we're in a rebuild, even with making the playoffs last year, we're in a rebuild - given that reality you can have the understanding that there hasn't been enough time for everything to take place, but that doesn't mean we can't be critical of what has happened. Where we get into trouble is extending those criticisms to justify actionable items like "fire McD/Beane," "Allen isn't the answer," or alternatively, "it's not McD's fault" or "that isn't Beane's fault" etc. And while some of these conclusions may end up proving themselves in the end, the simple truth is it's all speculation (some more informed/educated than others). To the point at hand re: cognitive dissonance, it's more the case that regardless of the coaching staff in place, there's no guarantee that Mahomes/Watson develop the same way. Of course they each have inherent talents that show beyond what a coaching staff can develop, but a lot of what you are seeing is right place right time in terms of their transition to the NFL. No reason that Allen can't have a Mahomes-esque year - but the part we don't want to hear is that it might be another season or two before he gets there. I argued that with Rico/Culley developing either QB in his first year, it's more likely than not that neither ends up the way they are playing now, which of course falls on McD for making the personnel decision to hire. But even so, I don't find that it completely destroys my optimism for what we could potentially have under his HC tenure. But does it make me cautiously skeptical? You bet.

Not necessarily - we have no way of telling what the future will be like until we go through this offseason at the very least. And I can see the arguments for why you'd think Mahomes would be a competitive QB capable of starting week in and week out for a team, but I just can't agree the same results you are seeing would have occurred here. Not saying he'd be trash, but I don't think he's the franchise caliber player you are seeing now. We could go 8-8 next year, or even hit double digit wins for all we know. I honestly don't know enough about offensive schemes and NFL playbooks to reach a conclusion on Daboll, even if this roster could provide operative data to properly judge him this year. Like I said, given the plan promised of a rebuild, there hasn't been nearly enough time or data to properly assess any outcome, and place judgment one way or the other just yet. Doesn't make me a homer, just means that I'd like to approach this with what I believe to be a logical approach and see where we are when we have some semblance of a fully built roster.

While I certainly appreciated the rest of the post - this is likely the most true statement I've read since the season began in relation to this board. When things are as bad as we've witnessed thus far, we have an immediate need to assign blame because it makes the issues creating the problem "known," or at least it makes us feel like they are known, despite logic often pointing in the other direction, or toward the direction of unknown. Believing that you "know" what the exact issues are provides a sense of comfort because it makes the problem manageable and ultimately, solvable. How many posters on here actually know the exact issues, remains to be seen - I know I'm certainly not one of them.

Because McDermott doesn't have to be the one developing the QB, he just needs to hire the right offensive personnel at QB coach and OC. While my judgment on Daboll is being reserved until next season, he's included in this conversation, but not nearly as much as someone whose job is solely devoted to the QB. Plenty of defensive-minded HCs have had long-term careers and have had QBs develop on their roster outside of their influence. The "current regime" implies a static, unchanging group. In the year we could have drafted Mahomes we had the same offensive assistants (except it would be Rico instead of Daboll, ew) helping Mahomes, who imo aren't adequate at developing the position. This opinion is mostly in reference to Culley. But do you honestly think Rico and Culley would've given you the Mahomes you see today? No. The only non-mutually exclusive piece to this is McD's hiring of offensive assistants - I can't speak for the homers, but for my personal opinion, I didn't expect this to be his strong suit and would like to see some changes made outside of Daboll, particularly in regards to Castillo and Culley. But do these hires make me feel like he isn't a long term answer at HC? Nope.

Only issue is how they handle the draft given our pick selection. Chances we land both an OL (assuming Little given our current record), and NHarry seem slim at best, while we still could use both desperately. I know there's also AJ as far as the WR conversation goes, but NHarry would likely be a better fit for an offense with an inaccurate QB. NHarry just has the catch radius to become Allen's best friend, enough to make me consider the 1st round pick on him for our young QB. Talks appear to have NHarry creeping up the boards into the 1st round from the 2nd however, presenting an issue. While I believe every team should be built from the lines out, I'd be incredibly tempted not to select a BPA generational talent like Oliver/Bosa with a top 5 pick, or trade back to land NHarry and other interior OL/tackles in the late first early second rounds. Thanks for posting these btw - the take on Daboll's offense, while a surface opinion in the article is an interesting read. And the fact that while we could easily upgrade the LTackle position over Dawkins, he's by no means a barely serviceable option there and could easily hold his own at the position. The cornerstones of an offensive foundation are there, while not standout, Allen, Zay, and Dawkins are the young future of the offense should all go well.