oldmanfan

Absolutely. If I were them I'd be doing the same thing. But in a few years say they can't replenish their roster and start to fade, I am sure their fans will start calling for McVay's head.

Like I said I don't expect him to do well. But it would be nice to see, right?

You unfortunately are one of the people who would be included in the shut them up list. I just don't understand d why this kid throws up on himself. And I certainly hope Daboll does not give him looks where he has to throw that our pattern again.

Good for them that they're going all in, and if it works great. I just think historically it's hard to have a consistent winning team if you trade away a lot of your picks and rely on cap games and one time FAs. But we'll see.

Well, some of this is just not true. They did address Wood for example by getting Bodine. Trading Glenn? You ignore he was hurt all of last year with a big cap number, and that trading him allowed them to move up to get Allen. Plus Dawkins was already there ready to take over. Maybe you could have moved Glenn inside, true. And I agree with the WR stuff, although again that was partially due to their cap space philosophy. And they did try to get guys like John Brown. I think your assumption that McCarron would have gotten us 2-3 more wins is wildly optimistic. And I say that as one who assumed McCarron would be that kind of guy. He simply showed little if anything in pre-season. Why do people say that the team should have ignored Peterman's good preseason and known he would have been bad., and if the same breath assume McCarron would have been good in the regular season even though he was bad in preseason?

Right. Sure.

I hope the kid comes out and shuts people up on Sunday. I don't expect it, but I just hope he remembers how he played in preseason and transmits that to Sunday, instead of throwing up all over himself again.

Good stuff as always Shaw. Couple things. One, don't worry about Edmunds. It was a big hit and he got helmet to helmet on the guy. That will cause a concussion in anyone. Second, we have a problem at QB of course, but not much can be done right now. Anderson made some plays but also made mistakes, which is why journeyman QBs are called journeyman QBs. Wouldn't make a difference what name you put on the guy, Anderson, Sanchez, Barkely, Moore, that is what happens when you start reaching down into the bottom of the barrel because of injuries to your starting QB. Backup QBs just don't do much in the league.

Which is exactly what I just said. Other than not having Anderson or someone else like him come in when they traded McCarron, what else exactly could have been done differently? I like everyone else assumed McCarron would be the starter, and Allen would sit behind him and lean until they decided to put him in. well, unfortunately McCarron did not pan out as expected; he did not play well in pre-season and Peterman did. So what exactly was the coaching staff supposed to do, just ignore what went on during practices and in pre-season games? Just assume that McCarron would magically straighten out when the regular season started? So Peterman got the call and the biggest issue we've had with this entire QB thing is that Peterman for whatever reason throws up on himself when the real games start. So then Allen gets the call, just like every other rookie drafted this past year other than Jackson has done. And Allen as expected had ups and downs. So, again, yes they should have brought in a vet like Anderson maybe when they brought McCarron in (although reports are they tried to get Anderson in and he didn't want to sign then). But ask yourself this: would it have really changed anything? Would a guy like Anderson (or let's throw out other names: Sanchez, Barkley) really, honestly have changed the course of what went on this season? Would our record be that much better with any journeyman QB in there? Would it have forestalled getting Allen in there? Highly doubtful. The offense is in a bad way right now, not because we should have signed journeyman X over journeyman Y in March. It's because we have had our rookie QB hurt, and we've had to go with backups. Even with Allen our offense was going to be problematic because that's what happens with rookie QBs. And when you now have to go out and find a fourth QB to back up your 3rd QB because of injuries it gets really bad. So really, looking at all this you can say they should have signed a guy when they traded McCarron. Fine. You can say Peterman never should have started if you want to ignore his excellent pre-season. Fine too. But it doesn't make those arguments correct, and it doesn't mean our season miraculously improve.

How? Other than not bringing Anderson in earlier when they traded McCarron, how? They are down two guys that got hurt. So they have to bring a fourth guy in.

He's getting there.

When he gets cleared to play he'll play. No one is saying he needs surgery, just that they don't want to rush him back till he's 100%. And I expect a better backup situation here next year.

They don't have many choices right now. And they drafted the guy with the biggest arm in recent memory

Seems reasonable. And for those saying they need to replace Allen give it a rest. That's not happening and you know it.

I get tired of repeating this but I have said many times they should have brought Anderson or a similar guy in when they traded McCarron. And I have also said with Peterman that the mystifying thing is that he looks so good in preseason and practice but then throws up on himself. That said, when teams have two QBs go down with injuries they then have little if any chance. Then you grab what you can. And true to form people tonight are complaining about Barkley as if Jimbo is out there waiting.

How? Are you concerned they'll want to keep Barkley next year? Peterman? Maybe you need to define your concept of the future.

So saying signing him would be scary for our future means it has nothing to do with our future. OK.

scary for our future that this is their decision.  Your exact words.

Would you stop? You honestly think Barkley has anything to do with the future of this team? Two QBs are hurt. They have to get a fourth and none of the available guys are going to be much good or they wouldn't be available.

I have stated my position several times now. You have as well. Would you like to do it again?

I know you think you're Nostradamus, but let me say it more clearly: We'll see. And of course I would love to see the Bills in that position. I'm not saying the Rams are wrong. They're loading up to take their shot. Good for them. But their window may be narrow. They are building by signing FAs and trading away draft picks. At some point that will fail when you don't have the picks to build with. But they may win a title or two in the interim. My guess is they'll get to the playoffs, but get taken down before the big game.

As I said, we'll see. Let's see when guys like Woods and Krupp and Talib and Peters and Su start demanding big bucks when their deals come up

When Goff has to get paid and they have Donald's big deal and such we'll see. They have gone all in. Good for them. We'll see how it works.

Rams have this year and maybe next year. Then they'll have to dump a bunch of guys. We'll see if it works.

You don't have to keep them. But you're not the owner. Don't like it work on your yard Sunday afternoons.