Josh Allen injury: “Week-to-Week” with elbow sprain; Returned to practice 11/2

[oldmanfan]

Just now, thebandit27 said:

 

A few items of note:

- Darby doesn't have a 5th-year option; he was a 2nd round pick and is a UFA this spring

- Revisionist history on Dareus; he may never have been an all-time high-effort guy, but his effect on the run D was huge. Moreover, @BADOLBILZ's point is that they were quick to jettison Dareus just so that they could spend $50M in FA on his replacement, who isn't as good a player.

- Goodwin had just begun to focus solely on football in 2016, and the change in both health and on-field productivity was evident then.  I don't often beat them "Badol is usually right" drum (since it's pretty well established that he's often on-target), but he was the first guy to say that Goodwin would be a true NFL WR threat if/when he gave up track and focused on football and taking care of his body.

- I have seen nothing that would indicate that Woods wouldn't have re-signed here; not even sure he got an offer from Buffalo

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.

[GG]

5 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

A few items of note:

- Darby doesn't have a 5th-year option; he was a 2nd round pick and is a UFA this spring

- Revisionist history on Dareus; he may never have been an all-time high-effort guy, but his effect on the run D was huge. Moreover, @BADOLBILZ's point is that they were quick to jettison Dareus just so that they could spend $50M in FA on his replacement, who isn't as good a player.

- Goodwin had just begun to focus solely on football in 2016, and the change in both health and on-field productivity was evident then.  I don't often beat them "Badol is usually right" drum (since it's pretty well established that he's often on-target), but he was the first guy to say that Goodwin would be a true NFL WR threat if/when he gave up track and focused on football and taking care of his body.

- I have seen nothing that would indicate that Woods wouldn't have re-signed here; not even sure he got an offer from Buffalo

 

Dareus was a net negative for the run game, but probably a net positive for the "process"  For all the crap that McDermott gets for hap clappy talk, he did get the team to buy in and turn a winning record with a subpar cast.

 

I don't know if they offered Goodwin a contract, but they definitely made a strong push to bring Woods back.  In the end, they totally underestimated his market value.

[JohnC]

6 minutes ago, thebandit27 said:

 

A few items of note:

- Darby doesn't have a 5th-year option; he was a 2nd round pick and is a UFA this spring

- Revisionist history on Dareus; he may never have been an all-time high-effort guy, but his effect on the run D was huge. Moreover, @BADOLBILZ's point is that they were quick to jettison Dareus just so that they could spend $50M in FA on his replacement, who isn't as good a player.

- Goodwin had just begun to focus solely on football in 2016, and the change in both health and on-field productivity was evident then.  I don't often beat them "Badol is usually right" drum (since it's pretty well established that he's often on-target), but he was the first guy to say that Goodwin would be a true NFL WR threat if/when he gave up track and focused on football and taking care of his body.

- I have seen nothing that would indicate that Woods wouldn't have re-signed here; not even sure he got an offer from Buffalo

With respect to the Dareus situation let's put it in perspective. The new HC comes in and wants to change the culture where work ethic and dedication to one's profession are instilled. I'm not talking about only having choir boys on the roster; I'm talking about players who are serious about their jobs, and that certainly includes offseason preparation. 

 

Dareus was out of shape and had a history of laziness. That is well known. He probably did more sleeping in the film room than he did in his bed. So getting rid of him for what the market would offer (fifth/six) picks is what he took. If a coach is going to talk the talk then I'm not complaining when he walks the walk with actually taking action to accomplish what he is espousing. 

 

Is Dareus more talented than Star? Absolutely. But being more talented doesn't mean that your talent is actualized on the field. Star is fulfilling his role and acting professionally. Dareus wasn't steadily fulfilling his role and wasn't acting professionally, both on and off the field. In summary, not only do I have not have a problem with what transpired I applaud it. Check the stats.Our defense is doing fine without the man/child who plays in Jacksnonville. 

[thebandit27]

5 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Dareus was a net negative for the run game, but probably a net positive for the "process"  For all the crap that McDermott gets for hap clappy talk, he did get the team to buy in and turn a winning record with a subpar cast.

 

I don't know if they offered Goodwin a contract, but they definitely made a strong push to bring Woods back.  In the end, they totally underestimated his market value.

 

If Dareus were the only example of getting rid of a 1st rounder and creating a hole, then I think the buy-in would be greater...the problem is that he's part of a huge trend in lowering the overall talent on the team without replacing it adequately (or, in the very least, efficiently).

 

As to Woods, if they truly underestimated his market value then they're grotesquely unfit to run the football operations.  Woods' value was squarely between that of deals signed by Marvin Jones and Mo Sanu in the previous offseason, which put him right at $7M AAV (precisely what he signed for)...now, you may still be right that they undervalued him, but what does that say?

 

Now I'm not wholly down on McDermott and Beane, but I do think that they've significantly lowered the talent base and don't seem to have a great plan for what to do on the offensive side of the ball...and that's very concerning.

Just now, JohnC said:

With respect to the Dareus situation let's put it in perspective. The new HC comes in and wants to change the culture where work ethic and dedication to one's profession are instilled. I'm not talking about only having choir boys on the roster; I'm talking about players who are serious about their jobs, and that certainly includes offseason preparation. 

 

Dareus was out of shape and had a history of laziness. That is well known. He probably did more sleeping in the film room than he did in his bed. So getting rid of him for what the market would offer (fifth/six) picks is what he took. If a coach is going to talk the talk then I'm not complaining when he walks the walk with actually taking action to accomplish what he is espousing. 

 

Is Dareus more talented than Star? Absolutely. But being more talented doesn't mean that your talent is actualized on the field. Star is fulfilling his role and acting professionally. Dareus wasn't steadily fulfilling his role and wasn't acting professionally, both on and off the field. In summary, not only do I have not have a problem with what transpired I applaud it. Check the stats.Our defense is doing fine without the man/child who plays in Jacksnonville. 

 

You're not wrong...see my response to @GG above

[JohnC]

44 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Those issues are more important for next season. 

 

There is the proper focus on Peterman this year, because the important people in the Bills front office thought it was prudent to go into the season with him as a starter, and then a primary backup.   

In the grand scheme of things the more important issue is the rookie qb and not the backup. 

 

As I have said on numerous occasions the mistake this regime made was bringing in McCarron who was outplayed by Peterman when they were competing for rankings. They should brought in another qb such as Moore from Miami. 

[Bill from NYC]

9 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

John, I don’t think you’re right about the soundness of the McBeane Khmer Rouge approach to the roster - but even if you are, I’m quite certain the owners didn’t sign up for it.  You make it sound like the team is acting in concert pursuant to a settled script and that’s really where I think you go off the rails.  There is simply NO WAY that the Pegulas thought they were stomaching a 4-5 year gut reno.  McDermott acts like he’s at the helm of some cushy college program where he’s been assured enough time to wait for his first recruiting class to blossom into seniors and IMHO he is SORELY mistaken about that.

 

Again, I have been saying this since August - many of us have - these are reactive owners who hate being embarrassed and are patient until all of a sudden they aren’t and I predict that the patience will run out sometime over the next two weeks when Anderson’s custard melts all over the field.  It’s going to be awful football to watch, the fans are going to lose it and the owners are going to take notice and react.  How what will all manifest itself vis-a-vis Pol Pot McBean remains to be seen but we will see cracks in the OBD facade, I can almost guarantee it.

Tough to argue with this.

[GG]

Just now, thebandit27 said:

 

If Dareus were the only example of getting rid of a 1st rounder and creating a hole, then I think the buy-in would be greater...the problem is that he's part of a huge trend in lowering the overall talent on the team without replacing it adequately (or, in the very least, efficiently).

 

As to Woods, if they truly underestimated his market value then they're grotesquely unfit to run the football operations.  Woods' value was squarely between that of deals signed by Marvin Jones and Mo Sanu in the previous offseason, which put him right at $7M AAV (precisely what he signed for)...now, you may still be right that they undervalued him, but what does that say?

 

Now I'm not wholly down on McDermott and Beane, but I do think that they've significantly lowered the talent base and don't seem to have a great plan for what to do on the offensive side of the ball...and that's very concerning.

 

As the saying goes, the Bills picked the wrong time to quit sniffing glue.   

 

A lot of the issues are due to the overlap of a new coach and a lame duck GM.  We have no idea in how Beane would have approached FA and the draft if he were in the seat in January 2017.

 

But overall, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until at least next year to fix the offense.   They clearly have been able to plug the self made defensive holes much more efficiently than they have on offense.  Again, none of the offensive woes would matter if they got competent QB play.

[GG]

1 minute ago, ScottLaw said:

Beat out McCarron.... according to the coach INFATUATED with Peterman. 

 

 

 

It wasn't just to the coach but anyone with a pair of eyes.  No matter how bad Peterman is, he was far better than McCarron in preseason games.

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, ScottLaw said:

Beat out McCarron.... according to the coach INFATUATED with Peterman. 

 

 

When you compete you compete. The winner prevails. That's life in the NFL. 

[Bill from NYC]

10 hours ago, JohnC said:

The mistake that was made was getting McCarron.  So when he didn't start he wanted out, and he was accommodated. The mistake that this regime made was getting McCarron instead of getting another vet placeholder. 

 

 

Seriously? Accomodated? The Buffalo Bills are a football team, not a Hampton Inn. These players sign a contract to work here. This was a continuation of the Marv Levy stupidity. Players are not hotel guests. They are paid to do a job. Releasing McCarron or for that matter thinking that Peterman was even a fraction of him in terms of talent were idiotic moves that will cause harm to the franchise.

 

I for one am not concerned when players "want out," nor should our leadership be.

[HappyDays]

10 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

There is simply NO WAY that the Pegulas thought they were stomaching a 4-5 year gut reno

 

It isn't a 5 year rebuild. It's 3 years. Last year they shed players that didn't fit what they were trying to do. That left them with $50 million in dead cap this year, and they went all out to get the franchise QB. Traditionally this would be year one of the rebuild but this regime had a delayed start. Next year they have tons of cap space and a full draft to rebuild the offense. Next year we should be much more competitive and by 2020 we should be serious contenders. That is obviously the plan and Pegula signed on to it. He isn't stupid. They didn't sneak $50 million in dead cap under his nose. There is no way he is already thinking about firing people because we aren't competitive when nearly 1/3 of the cap space is being used on players that aren't on the team.

 

The one mistake this regime has made is the receiving corps. They undervalued Woods, Zay Jones was not a good 2nd round pick, and Benjamin has been extremely underwhelming. I can't fault them for the offensive line because they lost 2 starters to sudden retirement. Everything else they've done is fine. I couldn't care less about the backup QB. Josh Allen is the only thing that matters to their future now. If he develops, they will have no problem building an offense around him next year and they will be here a long time. If he doesn't, they will be on the hot seat in 2020. It's as simple as that.

[JohnC]

6 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Seriously? Accomodated? The Buffalo Bills are a football team, not a Hampton Inn. These players sign a contract to work here. This was a continuation of the Marv Levy stupidity. Players are not hotel guests. They are paid to do a job. Releasing McCarron or for that matter thinking that Peterman was even a fraction of him in terms of talent were idiotic moves that will cause harm to the franchise.

 

I for one am not concerned when players "want out," nor should our leadership be.

If he doesn't want to be here then so be it. Get his asss out. He certainly wasn't a special talent. What makes this qb issue more complicated than issues at other positions is that he wasn't interested in being a mentor to the young qb. That was probably the most important factor for dealing him. What wasn't needed was a frosty relationship among the qbs, especially as it related to Allen. 

 

You can scoff at Peterman all you want but he beat out McCarron while each was competing at camp. As I said on other numerous posting the mistake was bringing in McCarron instead of another pedestrian veteran. According to Peter King in a WGR interview McCarron made it clear that he wasn't interested in being a backup and a mentor to anyone. There was the mistake. Bringing him in. As bad as you think Peterman is what does it say about McCarron when he can't outshine the qb that is universally loathed by Bills' fans?

[GG]

6 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

And yet Peterman showed when the real bullets were flying he was absolutely awful.

 

McCarron was injured and came back to play a meaningless 4th preseason game in which yes, he struggled. But he has the experience when the games actually count where he didn't look anywhere near as incompetent as Peterman had/has. 

 

Absolute awful judgement.

 

I guess you're forgetting how McCarron got hurt in the first place

[dave mcbride]

9 minutes ago, GG said:

 

I guess you're forgetting how McCarron got hurt in the first place

I agree with ScottLaw here. It's unwise to judge a QB playing against vanilla preseason defenses. Didn't we learn this lesson with Rob Johnson? McCarron has actually been OK in real NFL games (6 TDs to 2 INTs and a 66.4 completion rate in 4 games in 2015). 

[GG]

Just now, ScottLaw said:

Was it stupid to go into the season with Nate Peterman and Josh Allen as your QBs? 

 

Don't change the subject.

 

Your point was that the only reason that Bills kept Peterman over McCarron was McD's infatuation with Peterman.   That wasn't the only reason.  Peterman actually looked better than McCarron in camp

Just now, dave mcbride said:

I agree with ScottLaw here. It's unwise to judge a QB playing against vanilla preseason defenses. Didn't we learn this lesson with Rob Johnson? McCarron has actually been OK in real NFL games (6 TDs to 2 INTs and a 66.4 completion rate in 4 games in 2015). 

 

Flip the argument.  Is it ok for an NFL vet to look mediocre against half speed defenses?

[Bill from NYC]

18 minutes ago, JohnC said:

If he doesn't want to be here then so be it. Get his asss out. He certainly wasn't a special talent. What makes this qb issue more complicated than issues at other positions is that he wasn't interested in being a mentor to the young qb. That was probably the most important factor for dealing him. What wasn't needed was a frosty relationship among the qbs, especially as it related to Allen. 

 

You can scoff at Peterman all you want but he beat out McCarron while each was competing at camp. As I said on other numerous posting the mistake was bringing in McCarron instead of another pedestrian veteran. According to Peter King in a WGR interview McCarron made it clear that he wasn't interested in being a backup and a mentor to anyone. There was the mistake. Bringing him in. As bad as you think Peterman is what does it say about McCarron when he can't outshine the qb that is universally loathed by Bills' fans?

I am not a huge fan of McCarron but he is 100x better than Peterman will ever be. You say he wasn't interested in being a mentor. OK, was Peterman a mentor? Please. Nate Clements wanted out. Levy made a "promise" to let him go and he did just that. I am tired of accommodating players.  This is part of what is wrong with the franchise.

[Gugny]

6 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Was it stupid to go into the season with Nate Peterman and Josh Allen as your QBs? 

 

It was stupid to start the preseason with McCarron, Peterman and Allen as their QBs.

 

The position has been poorly handled.  It's really as easy as that. 

[Bill from NYC]

26 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

And yet Peterman showed when the real bullets were flying he was absolutely awful.

 

McCarron was injured and came back to play a meaningless 4th preseason game in which yes, he struggled. But he has the experience when the games actually count where he didn't look anywhere near as incompetent as Peterman had/has. 

 

Absolute awful judgement.

Yes, and maybe there was a clue to be had about Peterman after the worst performance in the history of NFL Football.

 

Look, Peterman seems like a good kid and maybe McCarron is more self centered than Nate. I don't freaking know but McCarron was and is a better qb in every phase of his career. How anyone can defend cutting McCarron to accommodate his desires (at the expense of the team) is beyond my comprehension.

[GG]

8 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

 

Still not a reason to trade the only QB with experience of not completely shitting his pants in regular season games.... don you think that should've been taken into account before they sent him packing to Oakland? 

 

I think McDermotts love for Peterman is a big reason why Peterman was even still back with the team this year. He preaches everything McDermott is about. 

 

Again, that's a totally separate issue.   

Peterman outplayed McCarron.   

That is not the same thing as what they should have done to start the season. 

[K-9]

15 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I agree with ScottLaw here. It's unwise to judge a QB playing against vanilla preseason defenses. Didn't we learn this lesson with Rob Johnson? McCarron has actually been OK in real NFL games (6 TDs to 2 INTs and a 66.4 completion rate in 4 games in 2015). 

It’s not just the preseason games, though. Every practice rep is broken down and scrutinized in the classroom afterward. I suspect McCarron didn’t fare well in that regard. I’d like to hear Beane explain what he meant when he said “A.J. isn’t who we thought he was.” Was he referring to performance? Attitude? Be interesting to know.