oldmanfan

Yep. Maybe 3-3 vs. 2-4.

I agree. This must be the fiftieth time this week I've said they should have brough a veteran in when they traded McCarron. The plan was McCarron would start and Allen watch. But Peterman beat NcCarton out. As for the O line and WR, they want to clear cap space and Richie going nuts hurt.

Because Peterman beat him out in preseason.

Except of course drafting their guy for the future.

The one thing they could have done differently was bring in a different veteran FA QB vs. McCarron. And yet again I will state they should have done so when they traded McCarron. Now, would that have changed this season much? I don't think so. Peterman played well in preseason and got his shot. That would not have changed. Then it would have been Allen or whoever the third guy would have been - maybe Anderson. Would that have changed our record either way? I doubt it. Let's say Anderson was brought in earlier. Would people be howling to start Allen, that you can't win with a guy like Anderson? Of course.

Go back and really watch his plays last game.

Correct. My OP is hypothetical. I think in the end, as far as the season record, nothing much would be different. And now we have a vet that will play and the rookie will watch and learn as many wanted to begin with. Actually Mc Carron looked bad. I think it was the third preseason game? Against starters? First half, he did nothing. Absolutely nothing. Which surprised me because I though he'd be the perfect guy to play while Allen was learning.

You are in fact proving you don't read. I have said a number of times their mistake was not bringing in a guy when they traded McCarron. Just emphasized it again above. And what do you argue here? That they should have done exactly what I said they should have done. You think it would have made a bigger difference then me. Reading is fundamental.

You are talking to folks that get upset when Starbucks takes more than 2 minutes to give them their foo foo coffee.

You are another person in this board who does not read well. I said specifically that they made a mistake not bringing a guy in when they traded McCarron. Specifically. Multiple times now in fact. I don't think who the guy was mattered much as all the vets available were pretty much the same guy. Would that have changed much though? My opinion is no. I think Peterman would have started game 1 and we would have lost. I don't think we win game 2 regardless or the Pack game with any second string guy. Maybe Sunday we would have, true. So maybe 3-3 vs 2-4. Ultimately our record doesn't change much if at all. Allen got a few games under his belt and showed some progress, despite those who seem to think he hasn't because their mind is already made up on him. Now he'll watch a vet play for a few games and pick up what he can. So all this doom and gloom about totally mismanaging things comes down to, maybe, one more victory and having Allen play a few games. And arguments can be made both ways aboutbthe rookie playing. So I think this stuff is overblown.

It is my opinion. I think if you look at the guys available in March they all pretty much the same guy.

Henne is Anderson is whoever the next guy you want to name is. They ry should have grabbed one of the when McCarron got traded. A few games later they have. It ultimately didn't change a lot

Preseason isn't a fair thing to look at. Jets had him then and it's doubtful they make a trade within the division

On Darby I bet the Eagles pass on him. On Dareus Star is giving us more than Dareus did. And I'm sorry but Goodwin was not productive here.

Would our record be different right now? Would Allen be better or worse right now?

I don't think Bridgewater wanted to accept a backup role either. At least in March. Your schtick about Allen is really getting old

Bridgewater may have been the best option.

Many teams were scared off by Brudgewater's knee If you look objectively at Allen's starts you can see progress in areas. Absolutely true that their future relies on Allen being the guy.

I have said more times than I can count now that I'd like to still have Sammy.

The only possible improvement might have been Bridgewater when he was a FA back in March. But there were big concerns from all teams in the market about his knee. As I said the error was not bringing in a vet when they traded McCarron. But ultimately I don't think it would have changed things very much.

Let's review this whole QB thing, and see if things would have actually changed much if some of the things fans wanted had actually happened. 1. We keep McCarron and have him start the first 6 games. Two things would have happened. One, our record is no better and maybe worse, based on his play in preseason. People say Peterman wasn't as good as he showed in preseason. Does that mean the reciprocal was true, i.e. McCarron would have been better? Doubt it. 2. McCarron doesn't do well, so people would have been screaming that Allen should be playing. So Allen would have been playing anyway. Or: 3. We sign a guy like Anderson when we traded McCarron. That should have been done IMHO. Would our record be different? Doubtful but maybe the same. Would people be screaming to start Allen? Yes. 4. We should have kept Taylor, or spent a ton of $$ on a FA QB. A short term benefit but illogical when you knew you were taking a young guy high in round 1. So really it boils down to this: the only real difference we have between where we are this week and if we had signed a guy at the end of camp is the guy, Anderson, would have a few more weeks to prepare. And Allen would be sitting this week as he is anyway, only with 4 fewer starts to date. Would that have changed things appreciably? Can't say for sure but I tend to doubt it. And fans would be screaming either way

Coaches should stay when they win. Were we a playoff team last year? Yes. Go look at articles written by guys that know the league. McD is admired as a guy who took a less talented roster to the playoffs. Did Fisher win? No. Kelly? No. Continuity is important in terms of setting a philosophy, which allows one to make draft picks that fit, FAs that fit, etc. That's how you build a consistently competitive team. People that understand football and moreover how successful organizations work understand those things.

Ahem. Some of these guys left before Beane arrived so he does not get he lane for that. You may want to actually watch the Pats and Eagles D before talking about how great Gilmore and Darby are. Darby specifically I've see reports they won't pick up his fifth year. Dareus was a big tub of non-motivated goo when here. You can't have your highest player be that. And you may want to check two things: we made the playoffs without him, and with Star vs. him our D looks dominant right now. Goodwin was constantly injured with us. The others? Woods would have been nice to keep but he wanted to be back on the West coast. Glenn would have been nice to keep, but trading him put us in position to get our young QB. And I'd still like Sammy to be here even though he is the highest paid 4th receiving option in the league. Oh and spreading out cap hits? Rip the bandage off quickly or slowly. Next year a ton of cap money. My bet: a number of guys that may be a bit under the radar like Poyer was. Focus on O line, get a decent WR or two, and look out for the Bills.

The Bills will win 1 or 2 of the next 3, and McD and Beane will be here quite a while. The Pegulas with both their teams realize now that you can't keep changing coaches and front office and expect to win.

Nope. I actually went back and looked at each pass play in the first half. Other than the first one he either was on target or put throws where only his guy could get it