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

[1st&ten]

16 minutes ago, BillsVet said:

Regarding the Jets, they drafted Darnold in the 1st, retained a veteran in McCown, and signed Bridgewater in UFA. They went all in to ensure they had multiple answers at QB should something not work out.  When it was clear Darnold was starting, and the former starter McCown was there as a backup, only then did they deal Bridgewater.  A solid strategy after previous seasons of not truly addressing the QB position. They used each method to acquire a legit starter this off-season.  

 

McCoach and Beane? Their track record suggests they don't know what they're doing at QB. 

 

They signed a vet (McCarron) retained their 2nd year former 5th round pick who has struggled and possesses a weak arm (Peterman) while drafting the raw Allen in the 1st.  They traded the only veteran before the season and went with a significantly flawed Peterman who would be backed up by a raw rookie. The inevitable happened when the flawed Peterman struggled mightily, forcing them into their only option, the rookie who most people realize should have had more time than one half to watch from the sidelines. He got hurt, which has forced them into signing Anderson, who likely will struggle. Their rookie is injured and out for who knows when.  And Peterman has shown he's not suited to a NFL roster.

 

McCoach may know defense. But at the game's most important position, he and Beane are clueless...so far.

 

This is all true. I also wonder if the Bill's FO wasn't a little shocked when the Jets out maneuvered them & jumped up in the draft, There was talk that the Bills were high on Darnold before the draft. They might have thought they had enough ammo to move up & get Darnold or Mayfield but Beane might have played it too cheap with his draft picks & had to scramble to nap a QB.

[nucci]

29 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

I never cared about this years record. I don't care if we went 0-16. What was important was to give Josh an opportunity to watch and learn from the sidelines and not get hurt or lose confidence by playing too soon. We've failed miserably at all these. 

Seriously?

[oldmanfan]

16 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

And we would have been signing him for 1 year right? Because signing Bridgewater doesnt stop you from drafting Allen 

You never know if ANYONE i named signed in March would not have changed anything. And to say so in a thread like the OP is asinine 

It is my opinion.  I think if you look at the guys available in March they all pretty much the same guy.

[BillsVet]

2 minutes ago, 1st&ten said:

 

This is all true. I also wonder if the Bill's FO wasn't a little shocked when the Jets out maneuvered them & jumped up in the draft, There was talk that the Bills were high on Darnold before the draft. They might have thought they had enough ammo to move up & get Darnold or Mayfield but Beane might have played it too cheap with his draft picks & had to scramble to nap a QB.

 

I'm not going to worry about whether NYJ outmaneuvered them. Still, the Jets had a plan and executed it.  Challenge them for paying 3 2nd round picks, but they were decisive and had contingency plans.  I suspect, based on their Carolina experience, that Beane and McCoach wanted a big, strong armed, durable QB who fit the mold of what they had in Newton. OK, but why not have something in place like a veteran on the roster. It is the game's most important position.   

 

CT is right that this was negligence.  They tried to get by with 2 QBs on the roster to have another depth guy somewhere else. It predictably didn't work and now they're scrambling. 

[1st Ammendment NoMas]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

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

 

 

Anderson with 4 more weeks to prepare would not have ***** the bed in Houston, hence 3-3 instead of 2-4. Big difference! And maybe the Green Bay game would have gone differently. 4-2 Very Big difference.  Baltimore, who knows.  Did all 3 QB's look so bad it took our coaches 8 weeks to figure out the best of the worst. How do you not figure out that Peterson can't throw an out. Was Tre White playing with his hands tied behind his back in practice to make Peterson look like a game 1 starter. 

 

There was a serious lack of attention put on the QB position. With Bridgewater sitting around waiting for a chance to start, we missed the boat. With Anderson sitting around waiting to mentor. How can you tell me Peterson looked so good that no one saw this coming and we thought Allen and Peterson would carry the team for a year with no vets, no OL and a rag tag bunch of street bums at WR.

 

 

 

47 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

They have darnold and got a third. Why wouldn't they trade him? 

Darnold and McCown (who played very well)  plenty of insurance ICE

[Solomon Grundy]

2 hours ago, ProcessTruster said:

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

No, the Jets knew who their starter was and decided to gain some draft capital by trading a valuable asset.

[oldmanfan]

Just now, BillsRdue said:

 

Anderson with 4 more weeks to prepare would not have ***** the bed in Houston, hence 3-3 instead of 2-4. Big difference! And maybe the Green Bay game would have gone differently. 4-2 Very Big difference.  Baltimore, who knows.  Did all 3 QB's look so bad it took our coaches 8 weeks to figure out the best of the worst. How do you not figure out that Peterson can't throw an out. Was Tre White playing with his hands tied behind his back in practice to make Peterson look like a game 1 starter. 

 

There was a serious lack of attention put on the QB position. With Bridgewater sitting around waiting for a chance to start, we missed the boat. With Anderson sitting around waiting to mentor. How can you tell me Peterson looked so good that no one saw this coming and we thought Allen and Peterson would carry the team for a year with no vets, no OL and a rag tag bunch of street bums at WR.

 

 

 

You are another person in this board who does not read well.  I said specifically that they made a mistake not bringing a guy in when they traded McCarron.  Specifically.  Multiple times now in fact.  I don't think who the guy was mattered much as all the vets available were pretty much the same guy.

 

Would that have changed much though?  My opinion is no.  I think Peterman would have started game 1 and we would have lost.  I don't think we win game 2 regardless or the Pack game with any second string guy.  Maybe Sunday we would have, true.  So maybe 3-3 vs 2-4.

 

Ultimately our record doesn't change much if at all.  Allen got a few games under his belt and showed some progress, despite those who seem to think he hasn't because their mind is already made up on him.  Now he'll watch a vet play for a few games and pick up what he can.  So all this doom and gloom about totally mismanaging things comes down to, maybe, one more victory and having Allen play a few games.  And arguments can be made both ways aboutbthe rookie playing.

 

So I think this stuff is overblown.

[Alphadawg7]

2 hours ago, nucci said:

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

 

Here is the issue.  THIS is NOT the offense they are BUILDING.  Why is this so hard for people to understand?  All these posts about what other offenses are doing make no sense.  Beane has been here exactly ONE draft and in that draft went after the most important position.  We lost 2 additional lineman unexpectedly as well.  Beane literally said it would take 2 seasons to repair the cap as well.

 

We have NOT started to BUILD the offense yet, so everyone talking about this offense as if it was by design are way way off base.  The only thing we did was tear down the crap offense everyone was complaining about for years to build it back up, but that takes MORE than one season.  And first things first, get a new QB which we did.  

 

This offense is in now way shape of form an offense they “built”, it’s literally the leftovers a mediocre offense with addition of just a few new pieces, only one of which is a key piece (Allen).  

[nucci]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Here is the issue.  THIS is NOT the offense they are BUILDING.  Why is this so hard for people to understand?  All these posts about what other offenses are doing make no sense.  Beane has been here exactly ONE draft and in that draft went after the most important position.  We lost 2 additional lineman unexpectedly as well.  Beane literally said it would take 2 seasons to repair the cap as well.

 

We have NOT started to BUILD the offense yet, so everyone talking about this offense as if it was by design are way way off base.  The only thing we did was tear down the crap offense everyone was complaining about for years to build it back up, but that takes MORE than one season.  And first things first, get a new QB which we did.  

 

This offense is in now way shape of form an offense they “built”, it’s literally the leftovers a mediocre offense with addition of just a few new pieces, only one of which is a key piece (Allen).  

ok, I'll just sit quietly and watch the games. 

[oldmanfan]

1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Here is the issue.  THIS is NOT the offense they are BUILDING.  Why is this so hard for people to understand?  All these posts about what other offenses are doing make no sense.  Beane has been here exactly ONE draft and in that draft went after the most important position.  We lost 2 additional lineman unexpectedly as well.  Beane literally said it would take 2 seasons to repair the cap as well.

 

We have NOT started to BUILD the offense yet, so everyone talking about this offense as if it was by design are way way off base.  The only thing we did was tear down the crap offense everyone was complaining about for years to build it back up, but that takes MORE than one season.  And first things first, get a new QB which we did.  

 

This offense is in now way shape of form an offense they “built”, it’s literally the leftovers a mediocre offense with addition of just a few new pieces, only one of which is a key piece (Allen).  

You are talking to folks that get upset when Starbucks takes more than 2 minutes to give them their foo foo coffee.

[blacklabel]

I actually don't think they intended on trading McCarron. I think the Raiders called and offered a 5th and they were like, "Holy crap, um, OK, sure" because they likely weren't shopping him around, knowing that they probably wouldn't get much more than a 7th. They kept discussing how they felt like the QB room had a good vibe with Allen, Peterman and McCarron, but an opportunity came up to add some draft capital plus Peterman had such a good pre-season they felt comfortable enough with just him and Allen. Peterman did come in and work hard all off-season and it showed in pre-season but for whatever reason, when the real games begin, the kid implodes. 

 

IMO, Derek Anderson probably should've gotten a call right after McCarron was traded. 

 

Anyone expecting a whole lot from the offense this season is deluding themselves. They can only fix so much at a time and since it was clear they had less roster reshaping to do on defense, and with McDermott's bread and butter being defense, it made sense to build that side of the ball first, while remaining a strong running team on offense. I think the biggest monkey wrench that got thrown into these plans was unexpectedly losing Eric Wood. Can't understate his absence. Team leader for the last five, six seasons, routinely called one of the smartest guys on the team, very good at organizing the OL and making sure they were set up right for each play, etc. He's forced to retire, they find Bodine and retained Groy a year earlier, which was fine because Groy played well in Wood's absence in 2016 and Bodine was a four-year starter in Cincinnati. Losing Incognito also didn't help but given that they asked him to take a pay cut, I have to believe they felt like his play wasn't as good in 2017 as it was in the previous two years. He leaves and so they shuffle Ducasse from right to left and put Miller back in there who is only suited for specific schemes. Then they consistently swapped Groy and Bodine in and out of the lineup, never really allowing those guys to gel and get chemistry during the pre-season so of course they start the season looking like a complete trainwreck. Just over the past couple games have they started to look like a competent OL. 

 

I trust the process but I also realize that the dudes in charge, this is their first time being at the very top of the chain of command so some mistakes are bound to happen. I think they felt like they could again rely on a tough, opportunistic defense and a strong rushing game for this season while slowly bringing along their young QB with a focus on solidifying the offense in 2019. And hopefully before the trade deadline this year because if they wanna get some receiver help, next year's free agents aren't exactly awe-inspiring and any draft pick is going to take a while to reach their potential. So if I'm them, I'm on the horn daily to see if any teams have some pass catchers they're willing to part with.

[1st Ammendment NoMas]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

You are another person in this board who does not read well. 

Would that have changed much though?  My opinion is no.  I think Peterman would have started game 1 and we would have lost.  I don't think we win game 2 regardless or the Pack game with any second string guy.  Maybe Sunday we would have, true.  So maybe 3-3 vs 2-4.

 

I read fine bubba. And one game is the difference in making the playoff or watching the playoffs. Every game counts. When McCarron was traded we should have made a move to bring some experience into the QB room. "Playoff Caliber" is the motto. And that applies to our defense. We should not have let the offense go to hell before Halloween. All we can do is hope DaBoll shows competence and Anderson doesn't Peterman it.

[That_Guy]

since the premise of the OP is all hypothetical, it would be just as easy for me to create a hypothetical post saying everything would've went exactly as planned and we'd be undefeated.

[oldmanfan]

Just now, BillsRdue said:

 

I read fine bubba. And one game is the difference in making the playoff or watching the playoffs. Every game counts. When McCarron was traded we should have made a move to bring some experience into the QB room. "Playoff Caliber" is the motto. And that applies to our defense. We should not have let the offense go to hell before Halloween. All we can do is hope DaBoll shows competence and Anderson doesn't Peterman it.

You are in fact proving you don't read.  I have said a number of times their mistake was not bringing in a guy when they traded McCarron.   Just emphasized it again above.

 

And  what do you argue here?  That they should have done exactly what I said they should have done.  You think it would have made a bigger difference then me.

 

Reading is fundamental.

[Solomon Grundy]

2 hours 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

 

McCarron's play in the preseason wasn't as bad a you make it. Who's to say the record would've been worse, could be better. Maybe we win at GB and Houston with better QB play because the defense is BALLIN OUT!

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, That_Guy said:

since the premise of the OP is all hypothetical, it would be just as easy for me to create a hypothetical post saying everything would've went exactly as planned and we'd be undefeated.

Correct.  My OP is hypothetical.  I think in the end, as far as the season record, nothing much would be different.  And now we have a vet that will play and the rookie will watch and learn as many wanted to begin with.

Just now, the skycap said:

McCarron's play in the preseason wasn't as bad a you make it. Who's to say the record would've been worse, could be better. Maybe we win at GB and Houston with better QB play because the defense is BALLIN OUT!

Actually Mc Carron looked bad.  I think it was the third preseason game?  Against starters?  First half, he did nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  Which surprised me because I though he'd be the perfect guy to play while Allen was learning.

[vincec]

Let me just review the time line for all of this, so I understand.

1. The Bills traded away an experienced, albeit mediocre, QB before they had any concrete alternative in place.
2. They picked up a guy as their "bridge" who was the last FA QB to be signed and had a very limited track record having only started a handful of games.
3. They then selected his competition to start, trading their new "bridge" away for peanuts. This was done even though it left them with 3 combined starts of experience on the roster and the new projected starter had played horribly the season before.
4. After this starter bombs (again), they decide they have to start a rookie, who everyone (including the coaches) had been saying needed time to develop before he was thrown out there so that he didn't lose his confidence, develop bad habits or worst of all get injured.
5. The rookie struggles so the decide that they need a veteran after all, so they sign a guy out of retirement who hasn't played a snap in forever.
6. The hoped for franchise QB, whom they traded everything that wasn't nailed down to get, is injured and rumored to be facing surgery. Starting options include the above mentioned mediocre, over-the-hill veteran and a player who has completely bombed whenever he's taken the field.

At every one of the points above a different decision by the coaching staff could (and probably would) have improved the situation both for the short term record and the long term health and development of Allen. So I'm baffled as to how you can say that things wouldn't have been better if they'd handled them differently.

[oldmanfan]

2 minutes ago, vincec said:

Let me just review the time line for all of this, so I understand.

1. The Bills traded away an experienced, albeit mediocre, QB before they had any concrete alternative in place.
2. They picked up a guy as their "bridge" who was the last FA QB to be signed and had a very limited track record having only started a handful of games.
3. They then selected his competition to start, trading their new "bridge" away for peanuts. This was done even though it left them with 3 combined starts of experience on the roster and the new projected starter had played horribly the season before.
4. After this starter bombs (again), they decide they have to start a rookie, who everyone (including the coaches) had been saying needed time to develop before he was thrown out there so that he didn't lose his confidence, develop bad habits or worst of all get injured.
5. The rookie struggles so the decide that they need a veteran after all, so they sign a guy out of retirement who hasn't played a snap in forever.
6. The hoped for franchise QB, whom they traded everything that wasn't nailed down to get, is injured and rumored to be facing surgery. Starting options include the above mentioned mediocre, over-the-hill veteran and a player who has completely bombed whenever he's taken the field.

At every one of the points above a different decision by the coaching staff could (and probably would) have improved the situation both for the short term record and the long term health and development of Allen. So I'm baffled as to how you can say that things wouldn't have been better if they'd handled them differently.

The one thing they could have done differently was bring in a different veteran FA QB vs. McCarron.  And yet again I will state they should have done so when they traded McCarron.

  

Now, would that have changed this season much?  I don't think so.  Peterman played well in preseason and got his shot.  That would not have changed.  Then it would have been Allen or whoever the third guy would have been - maybe Anderson.  Would that have changed our record either way?  I doubt it.  

 

Let's say Anderson was brought in earlier.  Would people be howling to start Allen, that you can't win with a guy like Anderson?  Of course.

[Livinginthepast]

2 hours 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.

 

 

 

Everything Beane and McD have done with the QBs in the past 2 years looks a lot like 2 guys who have an illogical plan, a bad plan or no plan at all. 

[oldmanfan]

3 minutes ago, Livinginthepast said:

Everything Beane and McD have done with the QBs in the past 2 years looks a lot like 2 guys who have an illogical plan, a bad plan or no plan at all. 

Except of course drafting their guy for the future.