Why the handling of the QBs wouldn't have changed anything

[oldmanfan]

Let's review this whole QB thing, and see if things would have actually changed much if some of the things fans wanted had actually happened.  

 

1.  We keep McCarron and have him start the first 6 games.  Two things would have happened.  One, our record is no better and maybe worse, based on his play in preseason. People say Peterman wasn't as good as he showed in preseason.  Does that mean the reciprocal was true, i.e. McCarron would have been better?  Doubt it.  

 

2. McCarron doesn't do well, so people would have been screaming that Allen should be playing.  So Allen would have been playing anyway.

  

Or:

 

3.  We sign a guy like Anderson when we traded McCarron.  That should have been done IMHO.  Would our record be different?  Doubtful but maybe the same.  Would people be screaming to start Allen?  Yes.

 

4.  We should have kept Taylor, or spent a ton of $$ on a FA QB.  A short term benefit but illogical when you knew you were taking a young guy high in round 1.

 

So really it boils down to this:  the only real difference we have between where we are this week and if we had signed a guy at the end of camp is the guy, Anderson, would have a few more weeks to prepare.  And Allen would be sitting this week as he is anyway, only with 4 fewer starts to date.  Would that have changed things appreciably?  Can't say for sure but I tend to doubt it.

  

And fans would be screaming either way

 

[nucci]

The facts are the QB situation is a mess and with offenses breaking records around the league, ours is one of the worst.....that's why I'm screaming. Disirregardless how they handled this....it's not really working out too well at this point

[Coach Tuesday]

Teddy Bridgewater

[Casey D]

13 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Let's review this whole QB thing, and see if things would have actually changed much if some of the things fans wanted had actually happened.  

 

1.  We keep McCarron and have him start the first 6 games.  Two things would have happened.  One, our record is no better and maybe worse, based on his play in preseason. People say Peterman wasn't as good as he showed in preseason.  Does that mean the reciprocal was true, i.e. McCarron would have been better?  Doubt it.  

 

2. McCarron doesn't do well, so people would have been screaming that Allen should be playing.  So Allen would have been playing anyway.

  

Or:

 

3.  We sign a guy like Anderson when we traded McCarron.  That should have been done IMHO.  Would our record be different?  Doubtful but maybe the same.  Would people be screaming to start Allen?  Yes.

 

4.  We should have kept Taylor, or spent a ton of $$ on a FA QB.  A short term benefit but illogical when you knew you were taking a young guy high in round 1.

 

So really it boils down to this:  the only real difference we have between where we are this week and if we had signed a guy at the end of camp is the guy, Anderson, would have a few more weeks to prepare.  And Allen would be sitting this week as he is anyway, only with 4 fewer starts to date.  Would that have changed things appreciably?  Can't say for sure but I tend to doubt it.

  

And fans would be screaming either way

 

Good points.  They were in a bad QB situation for years.  Fans largely hated Tyrod. What alchemy were they going to perform to fix it in one off season.  They drafted a QB hopefully through the long term.  In the meantime they were going to muddle through.  That's what is happening now.  Some great alternative to Allen did not exist, except in people's imaginations.

[ProcessTruster]

5 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Teddy Bridgewater

the Jets bailed on him pretty quickly.  just saying.  must be something wrong there.

[All_Pro_Bills]

Whether another way of approaching the QB situation would have gotten us to a different result than the current 2-4 record, something worse, or something better isn't what concerns me about how it was handled.  The concern is what seems like a lack of strategic thinking when it comes to the development and handling of Josh Allen and the QB position as a whole.  Where we are now was accomplished by what seems like a series of reactionary transactions and decisions rather than some well thought out plan. 

Edited October 18, 2018 by All_Pro_Bills

[oldmanfan]

The only possible improvement might have been Bridgewater when he was a FA back in March.  But there were big concerns from all teams in the market about his knee.

1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Whether another way of approaching the QB situation would have gotten us to a different result than the current 2-4 record, something worse, or something better isn't what concerns me about how it was handled.  The concern is what seems like a lack of strategic thinking when it comes to the development and handling of Josh Allen and the QB position as a whole.  Where we are now was accomplished by what seems like a series of reactionary transactions and decisions rather than some well thought out plan. 

As I said the error was not bringing in a vet when they traded McCarron.  But ultimately I don't think it would have changed things very much.  

[mjt328]

20 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Let's review this whole QB thing, and see if things would have actually changed much if some of the things fans wanted had actually happened.  

 

1.  We keep McCarron and have him start the first 6 games.  Two things would have happened.  One, our record is no better and maybe worse, based on his play in preseason. People say Peterman wasn't as good as he showed in preseason.  Does that mean the reciprocal was true, i.e. McCarron would have been better?  Doubt it.  

 

2. McCarron doesn't do well, so people would have been screaming that Allen should be playing.  So Allen would have been playing anyway.

  

Or:

 

3.  We sign a guy like Anderson when we traded McCarron.  That should have been done IMHO.  Would our record be different?  Doubtful but maybe the same.  Would people be screaming to start Allen?  Yes.

 

4.  We should have kept Taylor, or spent a ton of $$ on a FA QB.  A short term benefit but illogical when you knew you were taking a young guy high in round 1.

 

So really it boils down to this:  the only real difference we have between where we are this week and if we had signed a guy at the end of camp is the guy, Anderson, would have a few more weeks to prepare.  And Allen would be sitting this week as he is anyway, only with 4 fewer starts to date.  Would that have changed things appreciably?  Can't say for sure but I tend to doubt it.

  

And fans would be screaming either way

 

 

These are all excellent points, and I totally agree with you.

 

However, I think the biggest concern Bills fans have (at least the more rational ones) isn't about our Win/Loss record, but on the plan for Josh Allen's long-term development.  The adrenaline stemming from Draft Day has worn off.  The excitement from watching our rookie QB make highlight throws in the preseason has disappeared.  Reality is starting to set in, and fans are starting to realize how much work Allen really needs before he can become a good starter in the NFL.

 

People want to see some kind of sign that Brandon Beane and Sean McDermott know what they are doing. 

They have no track-record or history of success developing a quarterback.  So when they confidently trot out Nathan Peterman, and he proceeds (every single time) to look like the worst QB in NFL history - it doesn't exactly calm the concerns that we know how to scout QB talent.  When we trade away our veteran backup (McCarron), then wait 6 weeks and sign Derek Anderson - it seems like they underestimated the importance of Allen having a mentor and are panicking over his slow development, as opposed to it being part of their master plan.

 

Bottom line... Bills fans want to believe this front office was brilliant enough to identify Allen as a future NFL All-Pro, and have a perfect blueprint laid out on how they will get him to that level.  (See Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes).  Instead it just looks like they are throwing $#!+ at the wall, and crossing their fingers everything will turn out all right.

 

 

 

[MAJBobby]

48 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Let's review this whole QB thing, and see if things would have actually changed much if some of the things fans wanted had actually happened.  

 

1.  We keep McCarron and have him start the first 6 games.  Two things would have happened.  One, our record is no better and maybe worse, based on his play in preseason. People say Peterman wasn't as good as he showed in preseason.  Does that mean the reciprocal was true, i.e. McCarron would have been better?  Doubt it.  

 

2. McCarron doesn't do well, so people would have been screaming that Allen should be playing.  So Allen would have been playing anyway.

  

Or:

 

3.  We sign a guy like Anderson when we traded McCarron.  That should have been done IMHO.  Would our record be different?  Doubtful but maybe the same.  Would people be screaming to start Allen?  Yes.

 

4.  We should have kept Taylor, or spent a ton of $$ on a FA QB.  A short term benefit but illogical when you knew you were taking a young guy high in round 1.

 

So really it boils down to this:  the only real difference we have between where we are this week and if we had signed a guy at the end of camp is the guy, Anderson, would have a few more weeks to prepare.  And Allen would be sitting this week as he is anyway, only with 4 fewer starts to date.  Would that have changed things appreciably?  Can't say for sure but I tend to doubt it.

  

And fans would be screaming either way

 

 

Or they signed Bridgewater after trading Tyrod and Allen gets his full year sitting and learning like they wanted. 

 

But their love for Peterman clouded smart decision making in this position group 

[SoCal Deek]

35 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

 

As I said the error was not bringing in a vet when they traded McCarron.  But ultimately I don't think it would have changed things very much.  

In a nutshell...this!

[oldmanfan]

12 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Or they signed Bridgewater after trading Tyrod and Allen gets his full year sitting and learning like they wanted. 

 

But their love for Peterman clouded smart decision making in this position group 

Many teams were scared off by Brudgewater's knee

20 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

 

These are all excellent points, and I totally agree with you.

 

However, I think the biggest concern Bills fans have (at least the more rational ones) isn't about our Win/Loss record, but on the plan for Josh Allen's long-term development.  The adrenaline stemming from Draft Day has worn off.  The excitement from watching our rookie QB make highlight throws in the preseason has disappeared.  Reality is starting to set in, and fans are starting to realize how much work Allen really needs before he can become a good starter in the NFL.

 

People want to see some kind of sign that Brandon Beane and Sean McDermott know what they are doing. 

They have no track-record or history of success developing a quarterback.  So when they confidently trot out Nathan Peterman, and he proceeds (every single time) to look like the worst QB in NFL history - it doesn't exactly calm the concerns that we know how to scout QB talent.  When we trade away our veteran backup (McCarron), then wait 6 weeks and sign Derek Anderson - it seems like they underestimated the importance of Allen having a mentor and are panicking over his slow development, as opposed to it being part of their master plan.

 

Bottom line... Bills fans want to believe this front office was brilliant enough to identify Allen as a future NFL All-Pro, and have a perfect blueprint laid out on how they will get him to that level.  (See Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes).  Instead it just looks like they are throwing $#!+ at the wall, and crossing their fingers everything will turn out all right.

 

 

 

If you look objectively at Allen's starts you can see progress in areas.  Absolutely true that their future relies on Allen being the guy.

[MAJBobby]

19 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Many teams were scared off by Brudgewater's knee

If you look objectively at Allen's starts you can see progress in areas.  Absolutely true that their future relies on Allen being the guy.

 

I get his knee. However 

 

1. He was cleared to play last season by Drs that handled that knee

 

2.  We were drafted a QB not looking for a long term answer. Just a Veteran Bridge. Hmmm 

 

3. Want a mentor in the room for your rookie whi better than someone that started many games in this league. And had to fight to come back from a horrific injury and still was on the Sideline helping Keenum??

 

 

 

but they chose AJ McCarron 

Edited October 18, 2018 by MAJBobby

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

 

I get his knee. However 

 

1. He was cleared to play last season by Drs that handled that knee

 

2.  We were drafted a QB not looking for a long term answer. Just a Veteran Bridge. Hmmm 

 

3. Want a mentor in the room for your rookie whi better than someone that started many games in this league. And had to fight to come back from a horrific injury and still was on the Sideline helping Keenum??

Bridgewater may have been the best option.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

58 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Let's review this whole QB thing, and see if things would have actually changed much if some of the things fans wanted had actually happened.  

 

1).....People say Peterman wasn't as good as he showed in preseason.  Does that mean the reciprocal was true, i.e. McCarron would have been better?  Doubt it.  

 

It’s not uncommon that some QBs have “gamer” in them and play better in season.  Trent Edwards looked better in preseason & couldn’t play.  Fitz struggled in preseason & played better with lights on.  Other QB WYSIWYG.

 

Moot point now, but the fact is AJM did play decently in some reg season games, which is more than we can say for Peterman.

 

58 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

3.  We sign a guy like Anderson when we traded McCarron.

 

You’re assuming Anderson plays, but maybe he doesn’t but having a vet QB makes a difference to Allen.  Possible.  Never know now.

 

58 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

4.  We should have kept Taylor, or spent a ton of $$ on a FA QB.  A short term benefit but illogical when you knew you were taking a young guy high in round 1.

 

Everyone agrees QB is the most important position in football.  4 of 5 teams drafting 1st round QBs spent serious $$ on veteran QB but somehow it’s justified for the Bills to risk the future of their 1st round QB by cheaping it.

 

Come on.  If so many other teams at least try for a proven vet with their rookie, just maybe there’s a reason.

 

[MAJBobby]

2 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Bridgewater may have been the best option.

 

He absolutely was. Specially if all reports are accurate that they knew they were drafting Allen why 

 

well Bridgewater 

 

also was the MOST picked apart QB in his class as well 

 

had a draft day tumble 

 

was also a 1st round QB that was pegged the future 

 

EVERYTHING Allen was. But nope the powers to be thought AJ McCarron was going to come in an accept a mentor role. The same QB that fought the NFL to try to hit UFA earlier because didnt want to stay behind Dalton. Yeah HE was going to help a Rookie. 

[AllenWillBust]

What's damning is they have no clue about QB talent.

 

1) That Peterman is on the roster at all this season

2) That Allen was drafted

 

They are the worst in the league at the QB position, and they had ample opportunity to draft QB's that could have changed that, but they blew it, as per usual. 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

 

He absolutely was. Specially if all reports are accurate that they knew they were drafting Allen why 

 

well Bridgewater 

 

also was the MOST picked apart QB in his class as well 

 

had a draft day tumble 

 

was also a 1st round QB that was pegged the future 

 

EVERYTHING Allen was. But nope the powers to be thought AJ McCarron was going to come in an accept a mentor role. The same QB that fought the NFL to try to hit UFA earlier because didnt want to stay behind Dalton. Yeah HE was going to help a Rookie. 

I don't think Bridgewater wanted to accept a backup role either.  At least in March.

Just now, AllenWillBust said:

What's damning is they have no clue about QB talent.

 

1) That Peterman is on the roster at all this season

2) That Allen was drafted

 

They are the worst in the league at the QB position, and they had ample opportunity to draft QB's that could have changed that, but they blew it, as per usual. 

 

 

Your schtick about Allen is really getting old 

[The_Dude]

‘The handling of QBs wouldn’t have changed anything?’ What team has this dude been watching?

[MAJBobby]

Just now, oldmanfan said:

I don't think Bridgewater wanted to accept a backup role either.  At least in March.

 

But he signed for a Team that was going to draft their QB and re-signed their starter from last season. 

[Mark80]

I'm so sick of hearing about "should have brought in a vet" as if that is some sort of guarantee that a QB will be successful or something.  Or that Derek Anderson is going to be some sort of savior.  My lord, the guy was a starter in the league for 1 season like 15 years ago.  All these vets have learned so much and are so great that none of them have been consistent productive starters in their entire careers.  Yeah, I really want Allen learning from these clowns.  Now, learning behind someone like Favre or Alex Smith is a totally different story, but there wasn't anyone like that available (that we could afford) to do so.  Tell me who we were supposed to get and I will gladly bash that idea as illogical, impossible considering our situation, or just plain stupid.