McDermott shouldn't have messed around with a QB competition over the Summer

[Dr. Who]

17 hours ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

I think that’s an idea that sounds better than the reality. 

 

The Browns traded for Tyrod Taylor to play in front of Mayfield. That lasted 2 games.

 

The Cardinals went out and spent $20MM on Bradford, and that lasted 2 games.

 

Beane was recently quoted as saying he made a mistake not getting Anderson in Buffalo sooner. We’ve seen 6 TO’s and 0 TDs out of Anderson before he was hurt, so no reason to think that would have gone any better.

 

So that leaves Teddy Bridgewater, paying a mint for Kirk Cousins, or outbidding the Broncos for Case Keenum.

 

We could pick up Landry Jones.

 

A poster smartly pointed out Nick Foles last season, and I can’t argue that. But unless you have a Josh McCown , I think a “veteran presence” most of the time is a waste of time. It’s an idea that sounds better than it is. 

 

 

This is a fairly persuasive argument. I think you sign a veteran qb to be a mentor, especially if you don't really have a proven qb coach. The poster who goes by 716 is insightful and he strongly asserts that Culley is a sound coach, but I am still skeptical about a fella who basically coached wr most of his career. Regardless, it would be nice to have the situation the Chiefs had where you have a solid veteran in Alex Smith that will allow a redshirt year and then the vet qb becomes a tradeable asset. That is a rare situation. The qbs you mentioned were the only truly plausible starter vets out there and the cost was largely prohibitive. In retrospect, aggressively going after Bridgewater would have made sense, but no one could know ahead of time if he was healthy. In the end, we are pretty much where all the other teams with first round qbs are (excluding the Ravens.) 

 

[Real McClappy]

19 hours ago, Fadingpain said:

Mike Schopp has been harping on the OP's point for months.

 

Allen should have been the Day 1 starter, that should have been known months ago, and there should not have been a QB competition.

 

I was fully on board with that as well and have consistently written as much for months around here too.

 

I don't think it would have advanced Allen's play much beyond where it is, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been the right choice.

 

 

Agree

 

Allen week 1 was the starting QB the entire 2nd half of the game against Baltimore. I'm not sure the 1st half against the Ravens behind one of our worst O-line performances this entire year would have propelled Allen's development in any way?

 

I also don't agree with handing a extremely raw rookie QB the starting position with zero competition. We should of had a vet QB here from day1. Even if crappy Anderson was playing day1 here it would have made the coaching staff look somewhat competent. Rolling with basically 2 rookie QB's only on the roster was a recipe for disaster, especially with our inept Oline and current WR core. 

 

All we can do now if hope for a full Allen elbow recovery and let him start the rest of the year to learn some skills needed on the NFL level. 

 

[Real McClappy]

18 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

That's fine.

 

I can see, and even agree with that point.

 

But what "real QB" are you talking about who wouldn't have been relatively quickly unseated by Allen?

 

Cousins seems about the only QB who might have come in and held the reins for the entire year.

 

Bradford got benched in Arizona.

 

McCown & Bridgewater couldn't beat out Darnold, who hasn't looked very good.

 

Keenum in Denver looks pretty awful.

 

And obviously Taylor got benched in Cleveland, though I think he might have lasted a little longer as the starter.

 

So, other than forking out $100 million for Cousins as your "real QB" option and drafting Allen--a situation that will never happen for any NFL team--who is your "real QB?"

 

Are you now thus conceding that even bothering with a QB competition between Allen, McCarron, and Peterman was an absolute joke?

There were no real QB's other than Cousins and maybe Foles.  McCown could have been a very nice Bridge QB. 

 

There were others though to bridge the year with actual game starting experience. Now these are not world beaters by any means but key word is bridge, someone with actual NFL experience here from Day1.

 

Henne

Moore

Fitz 

Glennon

Anderson

Stanton

Bridgewater

 

 

[transplantbillsfan]

44 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

There were no real QB's other than Cousins and maybe Foles.  McCown could have been a very nice Bridge QB. 

 

There were others though to bridge the year with actual game starting experience. Now these are not world beaters by any means but key word is bridge, someone with actual NFL experience here from Day1.

 

Henne

Moore

Fitz 

Glennon

Anderson

Stanton

Bridgewater

 

 

 

And which of those QBs do you think would have held onto the starting job more than a few weeks?

 

I think Bridgewater and possibly Fitz are the only 2 guys on that list who could have maintained some semblance of competence at the QB position with the team surrounding them needed to hold onto the starting job. Remember, whether it'd be they're fault or not, there's tons of pressure sitting on the bench behind them.

 

Just look at what that pressure did to Bradford, Taylor and Fitz early this year.

[Saxum]

On 11/5/2018 at 7:47 AM, dulles said:

On the other hand, you can't wait to bring in the vet, once the trade was made.

 

Any vet looked at would have been worse than him unless vet was cut by another team or lured out of retirement.

 

Mr. Anderson was approached but not pushed but I do not know if that was before or after AJ was signed.

 

1 hour ago, Real McCoy said:

There were no real QB's other than Cousins and maybe Foles.  McCown could have been a very nice Bridge QB. 

 

There were others though to bridge the year with actual game starting experience. Now these are not world beaters by any means but key word is bridge, someone with actual NFL experience here from Day1.

 

Henne

Moore

Fitz 

Glennon

Anderson

Stanton

Bridgewater

 

Fitz was signed by Tampa Bay very early so was not available. Several others choose to retire and would need to be lured out of retirement (did Cutler last year work out well). Bridgewater did not permit teams to give him medical exams before signing.  Stanton?  Were you paid by @BuffaloBarbarian to include him?

[Real McClappy]

18 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

Any vet looked at would have been worse than him unless vet was cut by another team or lured out of retirement.

 

Mr. Anderson was approached but not pushed but I do not know if that was before or after AJ was signed.

 

 

Fitz was signed by Tampa Bay very early so was not available. Several others choose to retire and would need to be lured out of retirement (did Cutler last year work out well). Bridgewater did not permit teams to give him medical exams before signing.  Stanton?  Were you paid by @BuffaloBarbarian to include him?

Fitz signed his 3.3mill dollar contract a day after we traded TT.  If Beane reached out to Fitz as the likely day1 starter or competition for it he would have come back. Whatever with Stanton, I threw the list out there as available QB's with actual NFL experience.  Anyone on that list here over Peterman day1 would have been better IMO.

Edited November 10, 2018 by Real McCoy

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, Real McCoy said:

Fitz signed his 3.3mill dollar contract a day after we traded TT.  If Beane reached out to Fitz as the likely day1 starter or competition for it he would have come back. Whatever with Stanton, I threw the list out there as available QB's with actual NFL experience.  Anyone on that list here over Peterman would have been better IMO.

 

Not true. Fitz re-signed with TB before the deal could be officially completed in the new league year and he preferred to stay with them. 

 

QB Fitzpatrick returns to Bucs on 1-year deal

[jrober38]

19 hours ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

I think that’s an idea that sounds better than the reality. 

 

The Browns traded for Tyrod Taylor to play in front of Mayfield. That lasted 2 games.

 

The Cardinals went out and spent $20MM on Bradford, and that lasted 2 games.

 

Beane was recently quoted as saying he made a mistake not getting Anderson in Buffalo sooner. We’ve seen 6 TO’s and 0 TDs out of Anderson before he was hurt, so no reason to think that would have gone any better.

 

So that leaves Teddy Bridgewater, paying a mint for Kirk Cousins, or outbidding the Broncos for Case Keenum.

 

We could pick up Landry Jones.

 

A poster smartly pointed out Nick Foles last season, and I can’t argue that. But unless you have a Josh McCown , I think a “veteran presence” most of the time is a waste of time. It’s an idea that sounds better than it is. 

 

 

 

All of this goes back to the fact that Josh Allen wasn't ready to start this year. He said it himself against the Bengals in preseason that he was shocked at the speed of the game. Since then, he's mostly looked like a deer in the headlights aside from a half of football against the Vikings. He hasn't been reading the field, and almost always just looks to check the ball down if his primary read isn't immediately open. 

 

Allen was an incredibly risky pick. I don't think playing him this year has benefited him at all and prior to his injury it's not hard to argue that he'd been steadily regressing since halftime of the Vikings game. 

 

Naming Allen the starter in July wouldn't have changed any of these things. He was a project QB out of Wyoming who has never produced big numbers and was always going to take 2-3 years to develop. Putting him on the field before he's ready won't help him long term. 

[Real McClappy]

2 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Not true. Fitz re-signed with TB before the deal could be officially completed in the new league year and he preferred to stay with them. 

 

QB Fitzpatrick returns to Bucs on 1-year deal

 

Right, FA signing did not begin until 3/14. The only thing the Bills could have done is tried a trade offer for him. 

[jrober38]

19 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

That's fine.

 

I can see, and even agree with that point.

 

But what "real QB" are you talking about who wouldn't have been relatively quickly unseated by Allen?

 

Cousins seems about the only QB who might have come in and held the reins for the entire year.

 

Bradford got benched in Arizona.

 

McCown & Bridgewater couldn't beat out Darnold, who hasn't looked very good.

 

Keenum in Denver looks pretty awful.

 

And obviously Taylor got benched in Cleveland, though I think he might have lasted a little longer as the starter.

 

So, other than forking out $100 million for Cousins as your "real QB" option and drafting Allen--a situation that will never happen for any NFL team--who is your "real QB?"

 

Are you now thus conceding that even bothering with a QB competition between Allen, McCarron, and Peterman was an absolute joke?

 

I'd have held on to Tyrod. His floor QB rating of 85-90 was worth more than the 3rd round pick we got for him. 

 

He's not going to win you many games, but he won't lose you any games either. I think he'd have easily kept Allen on the bench for half the year. He'd likely have the offense clipping along around 17-18 PPG like last year instead of the garbage we've seen this year. 

 

The problem in Cleveland is that Mayfield clearly outplayed Taylor over the summer. Mayfield had an excellent preseason, having produced very good numbers and with Taylor struggling early on and getting injured, it was always just a matter of time before the #1 overall pick would see action. 

[transplantbillsfan]

2 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

Agree

 

Allen week 1 was the starting QB the entire 2nd half of the game against Baltimore. I'm not sure the 1st half against the Ravens behind one of our worst O-line performances this entire year would have propelled Allen's development in any way?

 

I also don't agree with handing a extremely raw rookie QB the starting position with zero competition. We should of had a vet QB here from day1. Even if crappy Anderson was playing day1 here it would have made the coaching staff look somewhat competent. Rolling with basically 2 rookie QB's only on the roster was a recipe for disaster, especially with our inept Oline and current WR core. 

 

All we can do now if hope for a full Allen elbow recovery and let him start the rest of the year to learn some skills needed on the NFL level. 

 

I agree that one half against the Ravens wouldn't have made a difference.

 

It was the Summer of lost reps with the 1st team that's made the difference.

Edited November 10, 2018 by transplantbillsfan

[Foxx]

yep, if only we hadn't had a QB competition during TC and PS, we would squarely be in playoff contention right about now.

✊

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, Real McCoy said:

Fitz signed his 3.3mill dollar contract a day after we traded TT.  If Beane reached out to Fitz as the likely day1 starter or competition for it he would have come back. Whatever with Stanton, I threw the list out there as available QB's with actual NFL experience.  Anyone on that list here over Peterman day1 would have been better IMO.

 

But would anyone on that list have been good enough to hold onto the QB reins for the season and stave of any serious pressure to put Allen in once that QB struggles?

 

Guys like Allen, Darnold, Mayfield, Rosen, Goff, Wentz, etc. who are very clearly drafted in the top 10 with the expectations of being the Franchise QB for the next decade + will start much sooner rather than later UNLESS there's a vet in front of him who's not merely adequate, but good.

 

That's why Mahomes with the Chiefs is the exception, not the rule. Although if the Jets made the decision early on to go with Bridgewater once they knew he was healthy, they could have followed suit.

 

Our QB competition was a farce the moment Peterman was even allowed to be a legitimate part of the competition.

 

I just wish McDermott had the guts to call the inevitable early on so that Allen could have maybe built up a little bit more chemistry and communication with our crappy WRs and OL.

[Warcodered]

1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

But would anyone on that list have been good enough to hold onto the QB reins for the season and stave of any serious pressure to put Allen in once that QB struggles?

 

Guys like Allen, Darnold, Mayfield, Rosen, Goff, Wentz, etc. who are very clearly drafted in the top 10 with the expectations of being the Franchise QB for the next decade + will start much sooner rather than later UNLESS there's a vet in front of him who's not merely adequate, but good.

 

That's why Mahomes with the Chiefs is the exception, not the rule. Although if the Jets made the decision early on to go with Bridgewater once they knew he was healthy, they could have followed suit.

 

Our QB competition was a farce the moment Peterman was even allowed to be a legitimate part of the competition.

 

I just wish McDermott had the guts to call the inevitable early on so that Allen could have maybe built up a little bit more chemistry and communication with our crappy WRs and OL.

I think they wanted to at least have him sit behind a vet at least for the early part of the season. Which I think might of been the problem with bringing in Anderson he was okay with mentoring but didn't want to come in and take that early beating especially with the Bills schedule.

[transplantbillsfan]

12 minutes ago, Foxx said:

yep, if only we hadn't had a QB competition during TC and PS, we would squarely be in playoff contention right about now.

✊

 

This isn't necessarily about Ws and Ls--though I think if Allen had the whole Summer with the 1s, we have at least 1 or 2 more wins, which puts us back in playoff contention in the crappy AFC--but is instead about allowing your Franchise QB to get comfortable in the system and with the guys he's playing with during the season in order to further his development and perhaps even minimize risk of something like an injury that might take him out of a few games.

[Straight Hucklebuck]

6 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

All of this goes back to the fact that Josh Allen wasn't ready to start this year. He said it himself against the Bengals in preseason that he was shocked at the speed of the game. Since then, he's mostly looked like a deer in the headlights aside from a half of football against the Vikings. He hasn't been reading the field, and almost always just looks to check the ball down if his primary read isn't immediately open. 

 

Allen was an incredibly risky pick. I don't think playing him this year has benefited him at all and prior to his injury it's not hard to argue that he'd been steadily regressing since halftime of the Vikings game. 

 

Naming Allen the starter in July wouldn't have changed any of these things. He was a project QB out of Wyoming who has never produced big numbers and was always going to take 2-3 years to develop. Putting him on the field before he's ready won't help him long term. 

Ok, but when you trade up to #7 using up Glenn, #12, #53, #56 are the fans really going to wait 2-3 years on his rookie deal until he goes in? People would be ok watching veteran QBs on their last legs? 

 

I think this is the dilema. The fans, the organization, the Coaches all say they’ll be patient, they’ll only put guys in when they’re “ready”. But what really happens on losing teams is the losses start to pile up early in the season, Coaches are paid to win now, fans and media start lobbying questions into the Head Coach about whether the Quarterback play is good enough, and this is Week 3. You have 14 weeks to go. 

 

Allen is in because it’s hard to get one viable Quarterback on the roster, let alone having a quality veteran with quality games left in him. When you’re floundering the Coach (like ours) says this is all part of the plan. The right player, at the right time, in the right situation I believe is the way McDermott phrased it. 

[Foxx]

4 minutes ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

Ok, but when you trade up to #7 using up Glenn, #12, #53, #56 are the fans really going to wait 2-3 years on his rookie deal until he goes in? People would be ok watching veteran QBs on their last legs? 

 

I think this is the dilema. The fans, the organization, the Coaches all say they’ll be patient, they’ll only put guys in when they’re “ready”. But what really happens on losing teams is the losses start to pile up early in the season, Coaches are paid to win now, fans and media start lobbying questions into the Head Coach about whether the Quarterback play is good enough, and this is Week 3. You have 14 weeks to go. 

 

Allen is in because it’s hard to get one viable Quarterback on the roster, let alone having a quality veteran with quality games left in him. When you’re floundering the Coach (like ours) says this is all part of the plan. The right player, at the right time, in the right situation I believe is the way McDermott phrased it. 

lol. who said anything about waiting 2-3 years?

 

 

[Straight Hucklebuck]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

lol. who said anything about waiting 2-3 years?

 

 

Well if you look at the post I was responding to you’d see a specific mention of 2-3 years of development from Josh Allen. 

 

Now in terms of his argument it speaks to how raw and unaccomplished Allen was as a prospect. 

 

So jrober38 would have never taken Allen. 

 

In the end the pressure to win is right now. So you can have whatever plan you want. But losing changes things and saps all that good-will. 

[Foxx]

1 minute ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

Well if you look at the post I was responding to you’d see a specific mention of 2-3 years of development from Josh Allen. 

 

Now in terms of his argument it speaks to how raw and unaccomplished Allen was as a prospect. 

 

So jrober38 would have never taken Allen. 

 

In the end the pressure to win is right now. So you can have whatever plan you want. But losing changes things and saps all that good-will. 

my bad. carry on.

[Augie]

1 minute ago, Straight Hucklebuck said:

Well if you look at the post I was responding to you’d see a specific mention of 2-3 years of development from Josh Allen. 

 

Now in terms of his argument it speaks to how raw and unaccomplished Allen was as a prospect. 

 

So jrober38 would have never taken Allen. 

 

 In the end the pressure to win is right now. So you can have whatever plan you want. But losing changes things and saps all that good-will. 

 

I’m sorry, did YOU decide that?  A lot of people feel this is a developmental year, and if Allen looks like he could be the guy, it’s a great year. I’m not saying he’ll do it, but this was NEVER supposed to be about the record this year. This year is about progress with a promising QB and a quality young core. I’m not even sure where you are coming from.