Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I was pleased with what we saw last night. The talent is clear, but I don’t see any reason to rush his development. Saw him miss some throws and then he’d turn around and have a wow moment.

 

I admit I’d like to see him get some preseason action with talent around him, but they also have to prepare whoever gets the starting nod.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Rockpile233
Posted
6 minutes ago, Rockpile233 said:

I was pleased with what we saw last night. The talent is clear, but I don’t see any reason to rush his development. Saw him miss some throws and then he’d turn around and have a wow moment.

 

I admit I’d like to see him get some preseason action with talent around him, but they also have to prepare whoever gets the starting nod.

 

 

 

 

 

This is exactly the argument that Murph and Tasker are having.  It's a fascinating dilemma, one we haven't had in Buffalo since the infamous Flutie/Johnson catfight.

Posted
53 minutes ago, Mango said:

 

The issue is, in that situation, on a 2 point conversion, you can’t let the play break down like that. He needed to get rid of the ball and at least give somebody a chance to make a play. 

 

It’s a 2 point conversion, there is zero downside to just letting it rip. 

99.99% of the time this may be true. But to say "zero" is inaccurate. A turnover taken in for a score by the defense results in 2 points awarded to the defending team. Unlikely, but still possible. 

Posted

I need to watch the game but from what I’ve read he’s not ready yet. I’m fine with that as he’s 22 and really has limited college experience at a non power conference. He’s got the arm and his mobility seems good. He just needs time to develop. Let things marinate and hopefully he’ll be ready in the next 1-2 seasons. 

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, K-9 said:

99.99% of the time this may be true. But to say "zero" is inaccurate. A turnover taken in for a score by the defense results in 2 points awarded to the defending team. Unlikely, but still possible. 

 

They get two and you’re still down by a possession. So still fine throwing the ball.

Edited by Mango
Posted
7 minutes ago, Dr.Sack said:

I need to watch the game but from what I’ve read he’s not ready yet. I’m fine with that as he’s 22 and really has limited college experience at a non power conference. He’s got the arm and his mobility seems good. He just needs time to develop. Let things marinate and hopefully he’ll be ready in the next 1-2 seasons. 

Your commenting on something you haven’t seen, that makes zero sense 

Posted

In his first taste of NFL football Allen showed exactly what he is ... He's a first round draft pick with exceptional size, arm strength and a lack of fear throwing the ball. He also showed that he's a rookie and wasn't on the same page as his receivers on some plays and a little inaccurate on others.

 

He also played behind a line and with receivers who for the most part will be flipping burgers or selling insurance in another month.

 

I thought he looked pretty good for his first time out.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Juror#8 said:

Allen looked like he had one professional live action game under his belt. Allen is a gunslinger and a playmaker in the making. He will be fine. 

 

As an aside, why do people insist on adding an apostrophe + s to most words that ends in an “s” though that word possesses/owns nothing in the sentence? 

 

“Allen should start with the 1’s.”  

 

The one’s what? Finish the sentence. You used an apostrophe + s so there has to be something else there. Does that one own a car or a house or some Vaseline intensive care? 

 

What does that mean? What the !@#$ does the “1” own in this instance? I get it ... “grammar shmammar,” right? But what is so hard about dropping the misplaced apostrophe and making the sentence actually make sense?

 

Why not, simply: “Allen should start with the 1s.”

 

Boom. Easy. Shows a mastery of really basic English and one less keystroke to boot. 

 

To me that’s too easy not to do. 

 

Sorry, along with improper usage of “than” and “then” it’s just a pet peeve. 

I think becoming the grammar police on a message board where ppl abbreviate, use web lingo, and do things short hand will turn into a full time job. I dont think you want that lol

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
33 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

AJ, JA, and NP.

 

The bias doesn't shock me.

If you felt Allen did enough to jump np then he did enough to jump aj, who played at best no better than no.

Not shocked you want the 'bama guy starting though.

Posted (edited)

After last night, I feel much better about the QB situation and actually most of the offense.  I think we saw a huge difference between the Dennison/Taylor combo.  Not exactly sure where the blame lies in the past, but probably a combo of both.

 

With Daboll and a QB who seems to play more of a traditional QB position, we saw decisiveness, hitting receivers coming out of their breaks, deeper over the middle throws, and what I thought was surprisingly decent pass protection in the first half.  If we see more of what we saw last night, I think we keep three QBs and the pecking order for week 1 is:

 

McCarron

Peterman

Allen

 

 

Edited by dubs
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

The bias doesn't shock me.

If you felt Allen did enough to jump np then he did enough to jump aj, who played at best no better than no.

Not shocked you want the 'bama guy starting though.

 

AJ should have gotten the start based on seniority. Not a good locker room decision.

  • Haha (+1) 2
Posted
37 minutes ago, Dr.Sack said:

I need to watch the game but from what I’ve read he’s not ready yet. I’m fine with that as he’s 22 and really has limited college experience at a non power conference. He’s got the arm and his mobility seems good. He just needs time to develop. Let things marinate and hopefully he’ll be ready in the next 1-2 seasons. 

Its hard to comment on it if you havent watched...

Furthermore, its crazy looking at the comments (for example) on the you tube vid of all his throws. Some laugh and say he looked terrible and was jeff george/cutler/russell 2.0 (i disagree and dont think they watch much football) and some say that validated the bills using the #7 pick on him + trades. Its all over and proof how polorizing the kid is. Not a situation where u shld listen to other to form ur opinion. 

Watch it, form your own and then give it a whirl

Posted
14 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

AJ should have gotten the start based on seniority. Not a good locker room decision.

 

You don't start a guy based on "seniority"...

Even if you are, it makes no sense, since this is Nate's second year with the Bills, and AJ is a new FA, so Nate had seniority within the team, not AJ.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

Just finished watching the game.

NP and AJM looked very good.

Next game they will reverse and AJM will start with NP with the 2s.  Allen gets the 2nd half again.

 

Week 3 is "dress rehearsal", whoever is picked as starter plays into the 3rd and if Allen looks good next week he can get

the rest of the game with the 2s and 3s.

 

Hopefully Allen plays well enough to start the 4th game.  Let him play the whole game if possible.

 

Allen looked pretty good for his first NFL play.  It seems to me some fans have rated his 1st performance too highly and some too lowly.

He did well but needs a lot more snaps and has to continue to develop.

 

I know there is only one final cut down date but that does not preclude a team from trimming the roster ahead of time to give more snaps

to players on the fence and those "battling" for the PS spots.

Posted

I'm OK with him not starting with the first team yet.  The coaches see a LOT more of what he is absorbing and not absorbing, see a LOT more of the throws he makes and doesn't make.  If the coaches think he should get a start with the first time, then let him PRACTICE with the first team before playing.   If they think he should stick with the 2's and 3's, I'm ok with that also.

Posted
5 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

most consistent alabama homer ever

 

 

Seriously.

This isn't a union based on seniority, it's a performance based depth chart.

If we used the 'bama homer mentality, then anybody with more time in the league should get the start over anybody with less time.

I guess that the eagles shouldn't start wetnz when he's ready since he has less time in the league than files.

×
×
  • Create New...