ctk232

Not sure there's enough out there to reach that determination just yet, but has perpetual mediocrity helped out any other team? Chiefs have always been a good team and lucked out with Mahomes and the group they put together - but the Bengals? Cowboys? both teams perpetuating mediocrity showing flashes of contending but never do. We had some pretty bad seasons, but our otherwise 18 year purgatory of mediocrity really did wonders for us too. Bottom line is 8 or 9 wins a season should never be the goal, but it's where we end up every year: planning out the remainder of the schedule saying okay a win here, probably a loss there, but otherwise it's possible...whether or not we do end up making the playoffs, this is not a playoff caliber offense, nor was it last year. And that wildcard game was so very winnable if our offense does anything other than put up 3 points.

Lol that's fair. And I'd agree in so far as saying it's possible...just not probable in my mind. 5-11 or 6-10 seems more likely to me if anything depending on our offense.

Most elite run attacks start and end with the OLine fwiw - though I agree, a Shady replacement for the future would be nice. Not sure it's worth a first round pick though. Looks like the new breakout RBs can be had for a 2nd/3rd/4th

Gotcha - I was thinking meaningful as in salvaging the overall season. I get that it's Week 7, but I don't see this team going 7-3, or even 6-4, even with Allen healthy. It sounds terrible, but I'm just not sure what season we're trying to save at this point? We don't have to try to lose with this offense, but watching a rebuild is never an easy thing and we certainly don't have the patience for it anymore. But sadly it's what might be needed to see a perennial contender putting up double digit win seasons consistently in the future.

Peterman is there for if Anderson goes down - otherwise we're watching Logan Thomas. And the guy who was a first year head coach of the team that ended our 18 year playoff drought is on borrowed time? Not saying all his decisions have been great, but both McD and Beane have themselves more time than anything this year can change. This team this year was never going to win 8/9 games, everything is on track as far as rebuilds go. Could they have handled the QB situation better? Absolutely - but look at SF having to start Beathard now with Jimmy out, or way back starting Curtis Painter (or Dan Orlovsky?) when Peyton went down. Sure these examples have Jimmy and Peyton, which is infinitely better than Allen, but these things happen and it's not like it kept us out of a super bowl this year. In the grand scheme of things, the only time they begin to enter that question of job security is after next season when they've had a chance to rebuild the offense as well.

Were we ever expected to contend this year even before the QB debacle though? Offseason moves would dictate likely not. I don't think they wanted it to be deplorably bad, like 0-16 Browns or 1-15 Colts bad, but something to support the process and rebuild. While I don't like it anymore than anyone else, rebuilds take longer than we've ever had patience for, and yes, it will likely take another season before we even begin to see anything like the intended result. But I'm hopeful for a perennial contending Bills team, and not one that consistently tries to scrap together 8/9 win seasons and prays to make the bubble...we cheer harder for a playoff berth than we do a successful and sustainable franchise.

Right? My hope is the only reason Peterman is on the team is for contingency if Anderson goes down and we don't want to play Logan Thomas. That being said - what exactly do you mean by "meaningful?" You still thinking we can/should win the wildcard?

Right? Insert obligatory south park ski instructor meme here. So tired of LA and NYC having multiple teams - NYC at least has historically had both teams long enough to create a base for each. LA couldn't care less about football, and while the Rams are being the Rams, why have the Chargers? Was never a good move. Maybe Bon Jovi can finally have his Toronto NFL team...

I just posted something similar in another thread - but to me it seems that if the team's commitment was to rebuilding for the future beyond this season first and foremost, why didn't they just bench Allen earlier or whenever they wanted? Under the same logic, you can start him or play him whenever you felt like it. Doesn't have to be all or nothing. Have him run a few scripted plays per game to get experience with his reads at times, and/or have him play the full game and see how he strings a drive together at times. Either way he's developing. If it's for the purpose of protecting your future investment and giving him the best environment to learn and develop just own the decision and go with it. The media can create circuses out of what we've seen so far, and in watching these pressers I feel like McD and Beane have been backpeddling trying to save face with lack of confidence in their decisions. There's no need - just make your decisions and stick with them. Don't think the playoffs were ever a realistic expectation this year, so stop feeding into people pretending we should have been a 9/10+ win team and commit to your process.

Bit too soon though you have some points. In all honesty the QB situation could've been handled better once they knew AJM wasn't the guy they thought he was. But the injury gave them an excuse to do what they've been too scared to do since the season started, yet had planned to do all along: let him sit and develop. While I agree he was our best and likely only option with Peterman playing the way he did, they could have sat him at any time. If this was a kid drafted with known development needs, and they were clear that he would sit out the first season so the Bills coaches and FO could figure out what was needed to help him succeed and be the QB we need, then they could have done that at any point and just owned it. I was watching the pressers earlier this week and how we handled the QB questions and everything just seems so defensive. Any realistic fan could tell the playoffs were a bit of a pipe dream this year, and they were clear they were still building a team for the future. So commit to it, own it, bench your future QB when you need to and start him whenever you want to if it's all for his development and progress and the future. If he is the project kid with the mental toughness he's reported to have, why does his development have to be all or nothing? It generates a media circus blowing this out of proportion. Our offense is not performing well regardless of the QB, so whatever decision you make just own it and go with it.

Tres valid in regards to averages - would still like to see the trend become a pattern become commonplace, as would we all. While many other factors come into play, our red zone defense didn't start showing they could put this together consistently until the Titans game; this is still the defense that put up those numbers against the Ravens, Chargers, and Packers. Let's wait more than five games to say our defense is a top 5 defense without the added caveat of *so far*, though I agree it's absolutely gotten better and turned around.

Completely agree - being objectively critical isn't the same as saying "he isn't the answer." There's a lot that Allen hasn't grasped yet that the other rookies do have despite whatever statistics people may cite. Beyond that, to your point of being coached. It looks like he's been "involved" in offensive discussions, but the coaches are otherwise trying to scheme around him than for him. I don't believe Culley is the guy to shape him into an NFL qb, not in the least - he's had no consistency in development, and while no one should expect things to turn around over night, he should be able to focus on one thing at a time and improve. I know it was discussed on the board and dismissed early on, but apart from hiring a new QB coach (which we desperately need to), why not give Allen more time with the QB coach he worked with in the off season? Shoot, I'd love to see Romo on our sidelines more than Culley...who knows, maybe he becomes the OC we've wanted all along (not serious, but nice to think about.)

Was about to post OL, WR for my first two, but looking at the draft there is definitely more OL depth of talent. The only issue is aren't AJ and other WRs being graded as round 2 players? I'd address this with the first or second pick, but let's not feel like we're reaching again here. To OP's post, I'd prioritize interior line over tackle - get some guards who may be able to transition to Center if we can't get a vet OL to anchor our line in the middle next year. Then we can address tackle opposite Dawkins. I'd try and draft another WR if the position talent is there for the pick, and go RB/DB with later picks. I hope we can retain J Phillips and maybe get some more DLine help in FA so keeping our picks all offensive beyond the obligatory DB you should take every year in the 4-7 rounds.

Like everything you're seeing this season, he plays a role. You have to remember this is his first year back in the NFL as well, and while he's been here before, the game is always changing and it's a new team. First year would always be rougher, even with Brady. While he's had very suspect play calls, and his route trees seem uninspired, his blame in this regard is only so warranted. A greater issue is he doesn't have the QB he needs to run his offense. This is not a comment to say Allen isn't the answer, just that Allen is exactly who he is: raw, unrefined, and inconsistent. That's fine, but don't expect an offense to be able to do much when it's most important piece is raw, unrefined, and inconsistent. There are plays where we have receivers/tight ends open and Allen misses his reads or focuses on the rush - it's going to happen, but be mindful of where the ire gets directed. Add in the WR corps of lost misfits, in which only Zay seems to be standing out, and a JV OL and you haven't exactly been set up for success. As with others, I'll reserve my judgment on Daboll in full until after this year and more of our offensive woes have been addressed, though I would like to see him do more to develop Allen.

Well his last three starts, going back to 2016, he threw two INTs in the Falcons and Bucs, losing to both teams albeit fairly close scores. Threw an INT on his first play against the Seahawks and was pulled for Newton again. Think he may have had some garbage time play last year in the Wild Card game too. Point is 7/14 day prep or not, I honestly don't know how much better he will be than Peterman. I can't imagine it can get any worse, but how much better is it? And of all those seasons qualifying him as a "vet" he's had three seasons where he put up more TDs than INTs. I get that I can pull any stats any day, but the point is just because the guy has been in the league for multiple years doesn't automatically qualify him in any regard. Funny part is I'm not entirely sure it matters who starts between Peterman and Anderson anymore. I'll still watch, hope for a win, and be fine either way knowing that this team wasn't meant to compete this year and just accepting the rebuild for what it is.

Again, Anderson isn't going to be the litmus test you may think he is. He may be better than Peterman, and hell, he may even be better in that limited capacity. But he won't give you much more to look at beyond this week if he plays.

If he injured his UCL? Yes. If it's bad he's likely out against the Pats anyway. I'm still hopeful for him, but playing injured isn't going to help anyone here. Having a week to sit down might actually do him more good regardless, synthesize performance to date, take a week for whatever is there with the elbow to dissipate, and prepare for NE (barring any unknown elbow status at this point.)

Don't mistake my argument for support of Peterman. I just don't honestly see a better scenario for next week at this point. Realize that might have been misleading. Oddly, I'd rather Anderson than AJM starting past this week - given the times AJM has played for the Bengals, plus what we were able to see from his preseason, there isn't much else there compared to Peterman. Maybe we'd see 2-3 less INTs per game, but the arm strength and decision making are still suspect. There's a reason he was dealt and hasn't had a second look to be a team's starter in his career thus far.

Funny thing is, most of our turnovers come on QB pressures and forced fumbles - this is more a result of our tackling scheme of going for the ball. it's hurt us at times as well, but imho it's why you're seeing the turnovers we see. Far less to do with scheme, though you're right - logic would dictate that we'd be equally proficient on 3rd down. We're great at forcing turnovers until we can't, once we can stop teams on 3rd down AND force these fumbles, then I'll start to really believe. We also have to keep them off the field more, some of the red zone stats and 3rd downs are just us being tired from playing defense over 50% of the time.

Completely agree - though I think we showed progress in RZ defense yesterday, I'll take a team that is in the top 5 in both RZ and 3rd down defense over forced turnovers any day. While ballhawking is phenomenally beneficial in a game and is certainly more fun to watch, unless we can do it every game it's not exactly something that can be counted on while we can't stop teams on 3rd down or in the red zone.

Did he really? He was hapless until he had to lead the 3rd team to a comeback over another 3rd team in the preseason. Yes, he got hurt - but he wasn't exactly any sort of solution. Did we trade away the wrong guy? Not necessarily either as Peterman wouldn't be had for a bag of balls. The only thing we did have was Peterman's preseason performance, which was beguiling compared to his play in the regular season, and the potential to trade AJM for future capital. Which we did. AJM wouldn't have had us in any better of a position. Yes, this is my humble opinion. I get that it's easy to say anything is better than Peterman and the fact is that right now there's definitely worse scenarios. Like starting an aging Anderson who we just signed, wasn't much better when healthy and fit, and also doesn't know the playbook. I'll agree to disagree here - it's not just knowing the playbook, though I'd say that's the majority of the reason for me. I also think we're giving Anderson too much credit... And how exactly did Thad do coming off that week? With a different team and coaching staff around him? I've seen QBs play off of seven day preps on a completely new team as well, can't remember how many of those actually went well...

Honestly, Kyle doesn't deserve it in the least, but I'd rather pay J Phillips (at his current performance) than Kyle next year given purely objective cap concerns. And as long as J Phillips doesn't demand Kyle's salary - which he isn't worth that much. Nonetheless, his pass rush presence is something we need to help Hughes out.

Also 27th in opp red zone scoring % (TD only) while we're adding caveats. Buttloads of turnovers will only take us so far, and we need to be careful with rankings and statistics. Shutting teams down on 3rd down, and preventing red zone conversions to me mark a top defense more so than any other stat. Forced turnovers are great, when you have an offense that can capitalize on them. Red zone would be another achilles heel to add for now...

But it's all on Allen right? Don't get me wrong, he isn't helping at present, but he's performing as expected. There are problems with this offense beyond just one factor, but we have a complete lack of identity on offense, and little to no cohesion between players. This can happen when you have a rookie QB, and Shady and the other offensive captains can only do so much. This isn't a "culture over strategy" post, but something so fundamental as an offensive identity is severely lacking, and evident on game days. Comparing how our offense plays compared to the Defense, regardless of the score.

This would kill me, please just wait until the offseason to pick up a replacement or backup...if we're trading anyone it should be for capital of future starters and players, not temporary bandaids and serviceable back ups