oldmanfan

I will go back to what I said before. Knowing they were drafting a guy round 1 (and knowing they were going to clear cap space) they were not in the market to go after a Keenum or Bradford. So they looked at lower tier FAs and McCarron made sense. Then Peterman played great in preseason and McCarron didn't. Their mistake was not bringing in a guy as soon as McCarron went. But from what Tasker said they were trying. And of course Peterman throws up on himself. I agree about Jones. But they did bring him in for a look and we don't know how that went.

Yes. From what Tasker said today they were trying to get Anderson for quite a while, right?

True. In March. When everyone had concerns if he could play at all.

I'm quite sure his knee had teams scared to death. He's lucky he still has that leg.

I think there is justifiable criticism that they didn't have a vet like Anderson in when McCarron got traded, although someoneposted today they were trying to get Anderson in since the summer. That said, if they brought Anderson in 6 weeks ago, would that have meant theBills were brilliant? Would it have negated "lunacy"? Of course not.

And back to my statements above on Peterman. The guy earned a spot in his preseasons then throws up on himself in regular season games. I think Anderson starts Sunday. A vet with our D should be able to win that one.

And thus my statements above. They can be rightfully criticized for not bringing in a vet like these guys when they traded McCarron but none of these guys really stands out over the other.

Not a FA. Would have been an in division trade, and would the Jets have done that?

You say the FA QBs weren't the same. Fine. Who would you have signed, knowing you weren't in the market for the high priced guys since you were drafting a guy? Yiu made the claim they weren't all the same. Back it up. Guess so.

Yeah but he consistently did well in preseason and earned a spot. Then he just does what he does in games. Just a mystery to me.

But Peterman was clearly better than McCarron in preseason. The mystery is why Peterman throws up on himself

Ok. They weren't going to spend a fortune in a guy knowing they were drafting a guy. So then you look at veterans like Anderson, McCarron, etc., etc. and I'm not defending it; I said above they should have brought another vet in earlier when they traded McCarron. So two questions for you: 1. Who was the standout(s) making them not all the same? 2. Have you learned to read?

Who would you have brought in? Bradford? Hah! The FA available QBs were all about the same. And knowing they were going to draft a young guy no way they were going to spend huge dollars on someone like a Keenum.

Trading McCarron not a big deal to me. I thought he'd be the guy but showed nothing in preseason. But you can rightfully criticize for not getting the veteran backup in earlier.

OP: Do yourself a couple favors: 1. Look up who the playoff teams were last year 2. Suspend your Internet account so you can't post anymore

For sure one daughter and one niece

It doesn't right now. Consider the source.

I'll be there Sunday with wife, two daughters, two sisters in law and one of them brining my three nieces with her from Buffalo. And if I see Peterman run out on the field I'll lead the catcalls. I cannot imagine how Anderson does not start the game.

I hope you use better statistical analysis than used here.

You want to discuss regression analysis? You really want to go there? Young QBs tend to fluctuate, have good games and bad. The person I was responding to seemed to suggest progression involved game to game to game improvement. That's not necessarily the case.

But some of them have. People have shown you examples of guys with less than 60% rates that are successful QBs. And if I were to go through your site I'd find some over 60% who didn't. Your statement is simply wrong and ignores evidence right in front of you.

I've said before that statistics are thrown around inappropriately in sports, especially football. There are so many dependent and independent variables to throw into a proper analysis that simply looking at one number such as completion percentage rarely can be correlated to much of anything.

You realize if a guy throws 40 times a game (not far fetched for the college game) the difference between 60% and 56% is one pass, right? And that could be like one dropped ball. And statistically that's not really different.

If it's true all four rookie QBs will fail. They are all under that I believe right now. Is it your contention they will all fail?

He doesn't need surgery according to the reports. So your rant is now moot, as if blaming them for a guy hitting right on the elbow with his helmet wasn't cause enough for this to be moot.