BillsFan4 Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 2 hours ago, billsfan89 said: At the very least they should have picked up Derek Anderson the moment they traded AJ. According to reports today, they had actually been trying to sign Anderson for quite some time - going all the way back to when free agency opened in the spring. I guess Anderson just wasn’t ready to sign anywhere at the time.
BuffaloBillsGospel Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 8 hours ago, Fadingpain said: "To trade your only slightly proven guy was a mistake and clearly if you look at this situation logically you would say that it's absolute lunacy that it's likely or even possible that in Week 7 of the NFL season, the starting QB for the rest of the season could be a guy they picked up off the street. It's been a mismanaged position." "This has turned into a disaster at the most important position in team sports." From Hour 3 of One Bills Live today. Starts 2 minutes into the hour. https://wgr550.radio.com/media/audio-channel/10-16-hr-3-one-bills-live I'm not buying into the mismanaged part. Peterman outplayed McCaron in preseason and it looked like he may have been a viable option of course now in hindsight that was completely false but I doubt McCaron would have made a significant difference, maybe he wouldn't have thrown a pick 6 but A.J. was beaten out by a guy with more picks than TD passes so I'm not sure it's mismanagement. Maybe picking up Anderson a bit sooner would have been ideal. I'm not sure what miracle savior QB would have been a great option a few weeks ago though since this team isn't sending a draft pick for a bridge QB or we would have just kept McCaron.
BobbyC81 Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, PlayoffsPlease said: A normal team coming off a playoff season would have kept Taylor, drafted Allen, and cut Peterman. But that is not very Billsy, That is exactly what should've happened. Sure Tyrod was due a $15M guarantee but he could've started this year and Allen sit. Then they also wouldn't have had the money to waste on Star. Edited October 17, 2018 by LittleJoeCartwright
oldmanfan Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, LittleJoeCartwright said: That is exactly what should've happened. Sure Tyrod was due a $15M guarantee but he could've started this year and Allen sit. Then they also wouldn't have had the money to waste on Star. Would have cost them like 15 million. For a guy that they knew wasn't the answer. That's a lot of money for a backup QB. And if you haven't noticed Star is doing a pretty good job. They should have sweetened the deal enough to get Anderson in when they traded McCarron. Edited October 17, 2018 by oldmanfan
ProcessTruster Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 9 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: Money wouldn’t have been an issue at all in adding Bridgewater. They wanted to keep the path clear for their 1st round guy. They bungled the situation and there really is no way around it. well, we'll see ... its a 16 game season. I'm in the rip-the-bandaid off camp with a top 4 QB pick// you play him, hell or high water. I'm ok with Allen sitting a couple games.
Jpsredemption Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 IMO fireable offenses. 41 minutes ago, LittleJoeCartwright said: That is exactly what should've happened. Sure Tyrod was due a $15M guarantee but he could've started this year and Allen sit. Then they also wouldn't have had the money to waste on Star. But no Tyrod isn't one of their guys. If you haven't noticed that's largely how this staff operates. They don't like developing the previous regimes players. That requires them to buy in..and God forbid.
The Process Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 12 hours ago, unclepete said: Any rational person would agree. Except they should have picked up Bridgewater or Derek Anderson in the offseason instead of McCarron. One thing about McCarron....he is the opposite of NP. He played better under pressure. 1
oldmanfan Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 5 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: That simply calls for the question to be asked "why not?" The Browns traded for Tyrod Taylor with his 3 yrs of starts, signed vet Drew Stanton with his 17 starts - then drafted a guy The NY Jets had a capable, proven vet on the roster in McCown AND signed Teddy Bridgewater for only $0.5M guaranteed - then drafted a guy The Arizona Cardinals signed a capable proven starter in Bradford, signed vet Mike Glennon with his 22 starts - then drafted a guy I don't think either Taylor or Bradford worked out as their respective teams hoped, but the fact remains that if their precious high draft pick guy were injured, they wouldn't be sifting through scrap heaps to find a vet then hoping a guy who was sitting on his porch 2 weeks ago can speed-read the playbook, or facing the unpalatable alternative of hoping Mr Speed Reader can shake the cobwebs off in time, or starting a 2nd year player who got the hook halfway through 2 of his 3 starts and who rocks a mighty 0.33 TD/INT ratio and 4.3 ypa to accompany his 44.3% completions. The Bills have been under-investing in QBs for literally 2+ decades. We know the results. It continues. Why is this OK? It's kind of scaring me to find myself agreeing with you, but When You're Right, You're Right. They were not going to spend millions on a backup QB because they want to clear cap space. It's that simple. What this really comes down to now is they should have gotten a veteran guy in when they traded McCarron. That's a legitimate criticism. They could have sweetened the offer to Anderson, could have maybe traded for a guy with the pick they got back for McCarron. That would have gotten whomever a few more weeks to learn the offense. But, again, Peterman played great in pre-season and , yes, everyone wants to talk about how the pre-season doesn't count, etc. But he earned a shot. And for whatever reason the kid throws up all over himself in regular season games. So they go to Allen, which I think everyone knew was coming and, again, one can argue it would have been better to have him sit, etc. We tend as fans to see things in a vacuum. For example, some say we should have kept Taylor and drafted a kid. The money for a backup aside, maybe Taylor had no interest in staying under those circumstances. We say they should have kept McCarron. We'll somewhere on this board it was reported yesterday McCarron wanted out if he wasn't the starter. How exactly does it help keeping a guy that doesn't want to be here? So we'll have a couple weeks with I presume Anderson as starter. I cannot imagine they'll start Peterman again. With the D playing the way it is, we have a good shot Sunday, and will lose the NE. Then Allen is back and we go forward.
Ridgewaycynic2013 Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 7 hours ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said: He may be another of these guys who hangs around for 10 plus years as a backup If so, he would be the luckiest player in the league. His shortcomings seem to be recognized by just about all, except those at OBD.
Rico Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 8 hours ago, Reks Ryan said: Actually Tuel and EJ were clearly better statistically. It is amazing the parallels to 2013. Peterman and Tuel are basically the same guy. And EJ and Allen are both big athletic guys who look the part but can’t read a Defense and aren’t accurate enough. McCarron and Kolb had similar experience levels and both seemed like they could develop into solid NFL QBs when the Bills signed them, Only to look Terrible in preseason / training camp, suffer pre-season injuries and never play for the Bills in the Reg. Season. Both EJ and Allen end up forced into action in week 1 before they are ready. Throw in Thad Lewis getting picked up mid-season and starting a game on 1 week of practice. Welcome Derek Anderson. Obviously McDerrmott studied Marrone’s expert handling of QBs and said, “that’s the way to do it.” At this rate McD will quit on New Year’s Eve after his 2nd season The QB situation in 2013 was on Dimwit Doug Whaley, not Marrone. He cleared the path for his chosen one by having an undrafted rookie FA as his backup. This year, Peterman was only supposed to be a bridge QB thru the 1st part of the season until Josh took over when the schedule lightened up. Peterman was not capable of being a caretaker QB, and here we are... like I said, not good, but not as poorly planned as 2013.
Tenhigh Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 12 hours ago, MAJBobby said: I actually would have been ok with that (keeping TT) now in Hindsight of how they poorly managed this position group Bobby - How can you say this with with a straight face, after coming on the board last fall and spamming TBD with TT hate? Hmmm?
Buddo Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 Going into the season with just Peterman and Allen as your QBs was stupid. Really stupid. I really don't care, that they were supposedly trying to sign another Panthers reject, months ago, as they didn't get it done. Which meant that they went into the season with Peterman and Allen as their only QBs, which was really stupid. While there are lots of little things that happen, that you can't control, e.g. McCarron getting injured, you can actually do things to correct those situations - which didn't have to involve trading McCarron, or if it did, then get someone else in, in a hurry. It may well be that the 'plan' was to try and get Allen in after a given number of games e.g. 6, but if you only have 2 QBs, both essentially rookies, on the roster, then it can be seen that Allen needing to start sooner, rather than later, was almost a given. You also need to have 'plan B' in place, if Allen wasn't ready to go, at whatever given time it was you thought he could be ready. That 'Plan B' wasn't in place, and it should have been. Ultimately, the QB situation has been both mishandled, and mismanaged, and the sooner someone owns up to that from the FO, the better, for all concerned. After the first game debacle, it was glaringly obvious, that Peterman just doesn't have it. There are a whole bunch of 'failed' QB prospects around the league, who could have come in and done a better job, and more importantly, been an improvement, which is supposedly what Beane is doing, i.e. looking for ways to improve the roster at every position. Or not, when it comes to QBs. For all that McDermott has his student notebooks for the game, he obviously didn't look too hard at recent Bills history and what happened with the EJ/Kolb/Jackson fiasco, as they essentially decided to pull the same sort of rubbish again. 2
nucci Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 13 hours ago, Saint Doug said: I can’t blame the FO for what has transpired. It was fairly clear in preseason that it Peterson won the job. And Allen was also playing very well for a rookie. McCarron was the worse QB on the roster. What the FO didn’t know, and what was their job to know, was that Peterman would completely destruct during the season. Allen is playing pretty much as expected. As for signing Anderson, looks like they had little other choice. Why not? They started the season with Peterman and Allen as only QBs on the roster. Then decided Peterman was the guy until halftime of the opener. If this was any other Bills GM and coach they would be getting blasted but for some reason Beane and McDermott get defended around here. This is entirely their making
Kirby Jackson Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 1 hour ago, ProcessTruster said: well, we'll see ... its a 16 game season. I'm in the rip-the-bandaid off camp with a top 4 QB pick// you play him, hell or high water. I'm ok with Allen sitting a couple games. If they wanted to start the rookie though they shouldn’t have drafted the rookie that was furthest away from being ready. Everyone knew Allen had the largest learning curve. The Bills started him out of necessity not because he was ready. If they would have had another viable option they could have put Allen in whenever they decided that he was ready. You want to be able to make that decision not have it made for you. 2
Gigs Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 13 hours ago, Wayne Arnold said: Does this mean McBeane are on the hot seat? Would Whaley be on the hot seat if he ***** up the most important position? Even DW wasn’t this stupid
Kirby Jackson Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Rico said: The QB situation in 2013 was on Dimwit Doug Whaley, not Marrone. He cleared the path for his chosen one by having an undrafted rookie FA as his backup. This year, Peterman was only supposed to be a bridge QB thru the 1st part of the season until Josh took over when the schedule lightened up. Peterman was not capable of being a caretaker QB, and here we are... like I said, not good, but not as poorly planned as 2013. This is WAY worse than 2013!! The Bills got a guy in 2013 to be the caretaker and he got hurt. The Bills CHOSE to get rid of the caretaker that they signed this year (McCarron) because they thought Peterman could do the job. They created this mess by choice while 2013 was created by an injury to Kolb. You rail on Whaley every chance that you get but don’t distort the facts. The Bills were unlucky in 2013. The Bills were stupid in 2018. They also drafted receivers in rounds 2 and 3 in 2013 to support their young QB. Those receivers played along side Stevie who was young as well. They tried to give their QB some weapons. The job done this year was infinitely worse. Edited October 17, 2018 by Kirby Jackson 2
Patrick Duffy Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 13 hours ago, oldmanfan said: 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. I personally would have tried for Bridgewater. But that's just me. I wanted them to try and get him basically to start while JA sat, but they went another direction so as always it is what it is.
Gigs Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, ScottLaw said: Petermans a holy roller. It played a big part for why he's still here. This guy gets it. First thing McD says in his first press conference is how he’s a man of faith. Back when Peterman was named the starter (lmao) they did an article on how he’s a man of faith. Jesus never won a football game, god has absolutely nothing to do with football, but he actually weighs faith in his talent ruberic. There’s no other reason Peterman is getting a third chance. This is worse than Jauron’s lunch pale “high motor” strategy, when talentless Keith Ellison and Chris Kelsay we’re propped up because they “came to work hard.” At least Rex and Marrone understood that talent wins out over congeniality. This isn’t a ms America pageant, it’s football.
Gigs Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 1 minute ago, ScottLaw said: I have no doubt in my mind it's a big reason for why he's still here. It’s the only reason he’s here. It’s so bad I believe 100% we would be better off with a left armed Edwards under center. Peterman should go become a priest.
twoandfourteen Posted October 17, 2018 Posted October 17, 2018 11 minutes ago, ScottLaw said: Petermans a holy roller. It played a big part for why he's still here. Unfortunately, I think you're right. It's the only explanation I can come up with at this point. I couldn't care less about the religious beliefs of players or coaches, but I do think it's a factor in this situation.
Recommended Posts