ChasBB Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 On the contrary, I completely like our situation at QB. If one of the 3 QBs completely outperforms the other two during training camp and pre-season, that QB has to get the job and it could realistically be any of the 3. They are all capable. And I'm not giving up on Peterman, either. He's right in the mix so far as I'm concerned. Whichever of the 3 wins the starting job, I'm totally ok with that.
theAteam Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 Giants kind of screwed themselves. Eli ain't getting any younger.
Sky Diver Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Well, this might be the message board equivalent of limburger cheese. People who find it tasty can never, ever explain the appeal to people who prefer to "sniff and avoid" I want both McCarron and Allen to succeed, but at this point, both the contention that Allen is a stud and the contention that McCarron > Taylor get "not proven" from me, and I don't understand the appeal of asserting what's not proven as though it is true Allen was not a stud in college for (reasons). He was highly regarded by some draft pundits despite flaws on tape. We drafted him. Let's hope he becomes a stud in the NFL, right now he's a rookie who is totally untried and unproven. McCarron has been the Bengals backup QB for 4 years. He started a number of games 3 years ago, in which he averaged ~191 ypg. Folks here complained about Taylor's <200 ypg passing output this past year and Taylor has run game chops McCarron lacks. Let's hope when he plays, he proves better than Tyrod, right now that's at best, 3 yr old data. To me, it's not "hand wringing and gloom and doom", it's just a reality check. 1. 191 yds/game is inaccurate. 2. Cleveland agreed to trade a 2nd and 3rd draft pick for McCarron. They were only willing to give up a 3rd rd pick for Taylor. 3. Allen was the 3rd QB taken in a QB rich draft. The Bills and Browns clearly think that McCarron is better than Taylor and the NFL clearly thinks that Allen is a stud. 1
Fadingpain Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 4 hours ago, Boca BIlls said: Bills have a great situation for once. Instead of knowing our QBs are bad going into TC we have a chance at striking gold. It's been so bad for so long around here, just the prospect of having a successful QB makes the mouth water! God forbid we would actually have a proven, good QB rolling into a training camp! 1
Ridgewaycynic2013 Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, Rob's House said: I thought I'd mention some other teams with not so great QB situations:... I'm not sure of your accuracy, but that was a funny write up. Worthy of Steve Weller's work, back when the Buffalo News was a real paper. Edited May 7, 2018 by Ridgewaycynic2013
BuffaloBill Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 Why can’t people let this situation play out on the field? The truth of the matter is the Bills had to get better at QB. We will not know if they did until the season progresses. Lost in all of this QB chatter is the fact the D should be improved. Keep in mind the Bills would have seen no whiff of the playoffs had the D not been a turnover machine early in the season. 1
Rochesterfan Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, Seanbillsfan2206 said: I was arguing with a highly uneducated fellow about this earlier. For the record, I love the Allen pick and I think McCarron could be vastly underrated. But as it stands right now at this very moment, is there a team in the league that has a worse QB stable than us? Kansas City is kind of a question mark right now. Trubisky in Chicago has a year under his belt and should be better this season. Once again, I DO LIKE OUR QBs. I just think that on paper currently, we probably have the worst QB situation in the league How to answer this this is another question on perspective and how people look at experience and past performance versus future potential. For me - I would say No they are not the worst QB situation in the league. First I do not look at individual teams, but try to group teams together because the difference between groups of players is minuscule. I look at the Bills in a group of teams like KC, Houston, Chicago, SF, and even the Rams as teams with little experience with positives and negatives. These teams have an unproven starter and/or a potential long term answer. I find that I would rate little to no experience as either better than bad experiences or outside the grading curve because you just do not know. To me there are teams like Miami, NYG, TB, Cincinnati, and maybe Tenn or Dallas that have a designated starter that has struggled and no real back-up/future plan - that is a worse QB situation to me than the unknown. Then there are teams like Indy, Cleveland, NYJ, Arizona, and Baltimore that have a starter that is questionable, but a potential replacement to me these teams rank right around the inexperienced teams because the starter is just a short term place holder to see if the starter recovers or the future QB needs to play. Then there are legends/ high end QBs that are on their last legs with no back-ups - NE, NO, LAC, and maybe Detroit. These guys are still in a good spot, but need to be looking to the future. I rank them slight above the no experience/weak starter teams. There are very few teams that have an ideal situation with both a young/experienced starter and a good experienced back-up. A team like Philadelphia, maybe Indy (depends on Luck), and two questionable teams due to back-ups like Oak and GB. Overall I think these teams would be highest on my groupings. There are just many ways to slice this and that leads to many different conclusions and outcomes - for me it is not the worst situation because there are several teams I would not switch QB groups with - so to me those are worse, but I totally understand why someone would and could rank the Bills worst. Added post edit: Additionally there are teams like Atl, Minn, Carolina, that have QBs in their prime and minimal back-ups that are in a good position. There are also teams like Denver and Washington that can fit into a few categories depending on how you are feeling or what metric you want. Edited May 7, 2018 by Rochesterfan
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 Quite frankly, we have no idea if it's the worst. We do know that it is the least proven and most inexperienced QB room in the league though. 1
cd1 Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 (edited) 13 hours ago, eball said: 13 hours ago, Sky Diver said: The Peterman hate is over the top too. In the SD game he had no blocking and he lost his top receiver early in the game. He’s a capable backup. His NFL body of work to date suggests otherwise. That's not to say he can't prove the doubters wrong, but as of now you have no evidence with which you may support that statement. I'd have to say that at this point Peterman and Zay Jones are in the same "prove it" bucket. How long will it take to move finally move past the stench of poor performance? Maybe it is like when a headache finally goes away - you never really notice the moment it is gone. Peterman may never get another shot, at least with the Bills. Zay will be on a VERY short leash! Edited May 7, 2018 by cd1
Sky Diver Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 The Bills think that they drafted their franchise QB and they believe that McCarron is an upgrade over TT. I'll trust the process unless convinced otherwise.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 5 hours ago, Sky Diver said: 1. 191 yds/game is inaccurate. Is it now? My source is pro-football reference. "Started a number of games, in which he averaged 191 ypg" What number do you believe constitutes the accurate average of 192, 200, 160, and 212? 5 hours ago, Sky Diver said: 2. Cleveland agreed to trade a 2nd and 3rd draft pick for McCarron. They were only willing to give up a 3rd rd pick for Taylor. Why do you believe different trade bargains made in different seasons, in different situations, represent a better metric of QB on-field performance than actual on-field output? By that logic, McCarron should be a better QB than Garappolo since SF only gave up a 2nd for him but the Browns were reportedly willing to deal a 2nd and 3rd. I don't think it works that way. 5 hours ago, Sky Diver said: 3. Allen was the 3rd QB taken in a QB rich draft. The Bills and Browns clearly think that McCarron is better than Taylor and the NFL clearly thinks that Allen is a stud. I don't think those follow at all. If you believe off-field metrics such as draft position, and your opinion/inference about what teams think, are better gauges of QB performance than whether or not they've actually shown anything in the NFL, and what they've shown, we don't really have any basis for discussion. 1
Nihilarian Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 I don't think the QB situation is as bad as the offensive line situation...which is going to get the QBs killed...along with no run game as McCoy can't block for himself.
ghostwriter Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 You don't draft a QB 7th overall and presume that we have the worst QB situation in the NFL. That's a really high pick on a top prospect.
Sky Diver Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Is it now? My source is pro-football reference. "Started a number of games, in which he averaged 191 ypg" What number do you believe constitutes the accurate average of 192, 200, 160, and 212? Why do you believe different trade bargains made in different seasons, in different situations, represent a better metric of QB on-field performance than actual on-field output? By that logic, McCarron should be a better QB than Garappolo since SF only gave up a 2nd for him but the Browns were reportedly willing to deal a 2nd and 3rd. I don't think it works that way. I don't think those follow at all. If you believe off-field metrics such as draft position, and your opinion/inference about what teams think, are better gauges of QB performance than whether or not they've actually shown anything in the NFL, and what they've shown, we don't really have any basis for discussion. Average of 208.8 which isn't accurate either since some were full games. What does Garapplolo have to do with anything? Correct, I don't think we have any basis for discussion. The Browns clearly placed a high value on McCarron and the NFL clearly placed a high value on Allen. My observation of the two QBs is in alignment. Do you think NFL teams just flip a coin when it comes to signing and drafting players? I'll trust the process with Allen and McCarron until proved otherwise.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 OK I'll finally chime in The worst? Hard to say they don't but I won't jump too fast. You may recall we had the worst QB crop the last 3 years running. JETS, Cleveland, Arizona, Jaguars, Chicago and KC.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 1 minute ago, Sky Diver said: Average of 208.8 which isn't accurate either since some were full games. And what was his average in the games in which he started? 2 minutes ago, Sky Diver said: Correct, I don't think we have any basis for discussion. The Browns clearly placed a high value on McCarron and the NFL clearly placed a high value on Allen. My observation of the two QBs is in alignment. Do you think NFL teams just flip a coin when it comes to signing and drafting players? Such a high value that once he became a free agent they traded the first pick in the 3rd round to take on Tyrod at $16M instead of signing McCarron for $10M. 2
DCOrange Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 As another poster said, "uncertain" is a better descriptor than "worst" in this case. I'd certainly rather have the unknown in Allen than continuing to build my team around Ryan Tannehill, Andy Dalton, or Blake Bortles for example. And regarding the comparison to Cleveland, I personally prefer Allen over Mayfield, but obviously Cleveland prefers Baker and I imagine they probably prefer Tyrod over McCarron too. They were interested in acquiring McCarron a while ago, but if they felt this offseason that McCarron was better than Tyrod, it wouldn't have made any sense to trade a high 3rd round pick for the right to pay Tyrod $16 million or whatever it is when they could have simply paid McCarron $5 million without surrendering a pick. 1
ghostwriter Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: And what was his average in the games in which he started? Such a high value that once he became a free agent they traded the first pick in the 3rd round to take on Tyrod at $16M instead of signing McCarron for $10M. McCarron is nothing more than a life support raft, Allen has the ceiling of Ben Roethlisberger but myopic fans ignore that, they automatically assume the worst even though we may go from the bottom half to the top half by the end of the year.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 7, 2018 Posted May 7, 2018 Just now, NewDayBills said: McCarron is nothing more than a life support raft, Allen has the ceiling of Ben Roethlisberger but myopic fans ignore that, they automatically assume the worst even though we may go from the bottom half to the top half by the end of the year. Right, which is why I specifically said previously that we have the least proven, most inexperienced QB room in the league. That doesn't necessarily mean worst, as they have something to prove still, but I think it's what's giving fans that uneasy feeling.
Recommended Posts