Barkley should start and lose or keep the job. Nuance, emotion, morale are important.

[John in Jax]

Put me down with the group who wants to go with the hot handed, off the street, "just barely above Peterman", backup. LOL I sure hope to h**l that Allen doesn't get (re)hurt against a very physical Jags defense.

[transplantbillsfan]

I generally agree with you while understanding and being fine with the route of Allen starting.

 

I still think Barkley is pretty likely to start against the Jags, anyway. Remember that McDermott said "if healthy." That elbow injury is a tricky and unique injury for a QB and I could absolutely see us erring on the side of caution... or even using the injury as an excuse for 1 more game for all the reasons you stated.

 

But then what happens if Barkley lights it up 1 more week?

 

He gets another week?

 

And then another?

 

And then another?

 

And what happens if he has 3 really good games after the bye and 1 absolute stinker?

 

Do we stick with him again?

 

If so, what if he has another stinker?

 

I like Barkley. I wanted to draft him out of college. But the simple fact is that we're too invested in Allen, so allowing Barkley to go out there and have a series of good to great games might be a bad idea for the simple reason that it's incredibly short-sighted--and it feels awkward for me to say that because I'm all about "best chance to win" and everything. We cut Peterman, so while perhaps Barkley is our best chance to win RIGHT NOW (and possibly not... gotta wonder the impact of the fact that the Jets preparation was entirely for Allen), trotting Allen onto the field won't give the appearance us us actively trying to lose the way it did with Peterman.

 

And I think Allen's development happens best and quickest on the field, anyway.

 

Stow Barkley away on the team as a long term backup ASAP. If Allen turns into a bust, give Barkley his shot then. Not now. There's almost no point in doing it now and it might even be detrimental to our efforts to retain him as a long term backup.

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said:

I generally agree with you while understanding and being fine with the route of Allen starting.

 

I still think Barkley is pretty likely to start against the Jags, anyway. Remember that McDermott said "if healthy." That elbow injury is a tricky and unique injury for a QB and I could absolutely see us erring on the side of caution... or even using the injury as an excuse for 1 more game for all the reasons you stated.

 

But then what happens if Barkley lights it up 1 more week?

 

He gets another week?

 

And then another?

 

And then another?

 

And what happens if he has 3 really good games after the bye and 1 absolute stinker?

 

Do we stick with him again?

 

If so, what if he has another stinker?

 

I like Barkley. I wanted to draft him out of college. But the simple fact is that we're too invested in Allen, so allowing Barkley to go out there and have a series of good to great games might be a bad idea for the simple reason that it's incredibly short-sighted--and it feels awkward for me to say that because I'm all about "best chance to win" and everything. We cut Peterman, so while perhaps Barkley is our best chance to win RIGHT NOW (and possibly not... gotta wonder the impact of the fact that the Jets preparation was entirely for Allen), trotting Allen onto the field won't give the appearance us us actively trying to lose the way it did with Peterman.

 

And I think Allen's development happens best and quickest on the field, anyway.

 

Stow Barkley away on the team as a long term backup ASAP. If Allen turns into a bust, give Barkley his shot then. Not now. There's almost no point in doing it now and it might even be detrimental to our efforts to retain him as a long term backup.

 

 

[John from Riverside]

6 minutes ago, John in Jax said:

Put me down with the group who wants to go with the hot handed, off the street, "just barely above Peterman", backup. LOL I sure hope to h**l that Allen doesn't get (re)hurt against a very physical Jags defense.

This season is lost

it makes no sense not to start Allen at this point

[Skins Malone]

13 minutes ago, Just Joshin' said:

Is this a disease that only Bills fans get - start the second string no matter who it is and what their skill set?

 

When Allen was second and Peterman mucking it up, the call was for Allen.  Now the call is for a journeyman with limited success.  Why bench the future, freeze his progress and make 2019 a higher risk to win.

 

The Bills are not making the play-offs and need to invest in the future now, not Sept 2019.

 

Typical Bill's fans.  Crying for us to draft a QB...we do and then they want us to start a career back up because all the sudden they think hes gonna turn into Tom Brady because he had a decent game against the Jets.  Thats one of the reasons the Bill's are where we are...because we keep signing career back ups hoping they will turn into something different.   

[John from Riverside]

3 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

This is a weakness for McDermott that shows up repeatedly. 

 

He should start Barkely because the Bills kicked butt behind Barkely. It is that simple.

 

Barkely should be able to prove it was either a fluke, or not. The team deserves that.

 

Instead they will start Allen for no other reason other than they drafted him.

 

How is the team supposed to be positive and stoked when they know they finally had a tremendous victory and in response the coaches pulled the starting QB?

 

What if Allen does the most likely thing, and struggles? What if it is so bad they have to pull him? Then he is behind the 8 ball if you ask me. They are risking that for no good enough reason.

 

This staff paints themselves into corners where the only possible non-disaster outcome is that their plan goes exactly the way they envision.

 

So lets hope Allen does great because if he doesn't we will have a better playing QB sitting on the bench just because the coach says so.

 

And the team and us fans will never know for sure if Barkley was a fluke or not.

 

If Barkely starts and does great, then there is no down side. If he starts and flops, then we have Allen and we put him in next time. The only down side this way is that Allen loses a game of practice.

 

If Allen starts and does great it will be the first time, and it will be great. But it is unlikely. And if he starts and flops badly then you have all kinds of trouble. 

 

The decision is easy and as usual with the QB spot  the coaching staff  made the wrong one.

 

 

 

They are not just gonna start Allen because they drafted him

 

its also to evaluate him and give him experience and how much was given up TO draft him

[Brianmoorman4jesus]

1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

That's exactly what it would be and thank goodness the team is not going to waste that time.  Barkley is a backup. Period.  This is the time to get Allen invaluable experience to shorten his learning curve as the youth movement has begun in earnest with the team stiing at 3-7.  

No way to know about Barkley until you see more. So far 1 game and it was excellent. No way to draw backup only from that. I don’t care what he did in short stints with almost no chance to actually show anything. I care about what he looks like with THIS team in THIS offense. So far, he looks like a guy that should be a starter. I’d like to see a few more games to probe or disprove that.

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

No way to know about Barkley until you see more. So far 1 game and it was excellent. No way to draw backup only from that. I don’t care what he did in short stints with almost no chance to actually show anything. I care about what he looks like with THIS team in THIS offense. So far, he looks like a guy that should be a starter. I’d like to see a few more games to probe or disprove that.

 

Barkley's been around since 2013.  He is who he is. 

[John from Riverside]

2 minutes ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

No way to know about Barkley until you see more. So far 1 game and it was excellent. No way to draw backup only from that. I don’t care what he did in short stints with almost no chance to actually show anything. I care about what he looks like with THIS team in THIS offense. So far, he looks like a guy that should be a starter. I’d like to see a few more games to probe or disprove that.

You draw the conclusion of backup because that is all he has EVER been in this league

 

i wanna keep him but to start him over Allen is insane

[Virgil]

3 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

Starting Barkley would be a complete waste of time. It's the same kind of shortsighteness that has held the franchise back for far too long and I am happy to see that they didn't fall into this trap sitting at 3-7.

 

I don’t understand this logic.  He’s not old. If he works, he works.  I think he deserves another start after his last game.  If he bombs, then okay.  But I agree that he should start until he proves he’s still the Matt Barkley of old.  

 

To bench the QB that led the best offensive performance of McDermott’s career doesn’t make complete sense to me.  

 

I get what we put into Allen and want him to become, but it Barkley can keep doing what he did, what’s the problem?  Again, until he doesn’t.  

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

3 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

I don’t understand this logic.  He’s not old. If he works, he works.  I think he deserves another start after his last game.  If he bombs, then okay.  But I agree that he should start until he proves he’s still the Matt Barkley of old.  

 

To bench the QB that led the best offensive performance of McDermott’s career doesn’t make complete sense to me.  

 

I get what we put into Allen and want him to become, but it Barkley can keep doing what he did, what’s the problem?  Again, until he doesn’t.  

 

That line of thinking is pointless, meaningless and does nothing to move the team forward... no, less than nothing. It’s a net negative.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Virgil said:

 

I don’t understand this logic.  He’s not old. If he works, he works.  I think he deserves another start after his last game.  If he bombs, then okay.  But I agree that he should start until he proves he’s still the Matt Barkley of old.  

 

To bench the QB that led the best offensive performance of McDermott’s career doesn’t make complete sense to me.  

 

I get what we put into Allen and want him to become, but it Barkley can keep doing what he did, what’s the problem?  Again, until he doesn’t.  

 

He doesn't and he isn't getting another start with Allen expected back.  Barkley got away with a couple of floaters that should have been picked.  He's interception prone and is decent in short stints. Nothing more.  It's all about Allen who will have been out for six weeks by next Sunday and not some journeyman lightning in a bottle retread.  The Bills have been down this road too many times and I'm shocked how many fans just keep saying "Thank You Sir May I Have Another". Enough of this shortsighted mindset. 

[NoSaint]

3 hours ago, ChicagoRic said:

It was one game.  This is the same kind of logic that prompted us to sign Rob Johnson.  

 

No it’s much worse. It would be like a team signing Rob Johnson after he played here and anointing him starter for not completely embarrassing himself 1 time

[Brianmoorman4jesus]

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Barkley's been around since 2013.  He is who he is. 

It’s a good thing every team doesn’t think that way. Might have never gotten a Kurt Warner. Doug Flutie. Rich Gannon. Nick Foles last year. Steve Young. Brett Favre. Vinny Testerverde. Case Kenum. Kirk Cousins. Or any guy that didn’t show a lot right away but then made the most of their opportunity later on. I know there are 50 more I just am going to use a few to get the point across.

 

Barkley has been behind an established starter at EVERY stop. He has NEVER gotten a real chance to play. The only stretch of starting he had was with a pitiful Bears team that was completely out of it. He played in 6 games and threw for over 300 yds in half of them. We haven’t thrown for over 300 yds three times in the last 5 seasons combined. Then he started last week and in less then 2 weeks with the team, led the worst offense in recent history to 41 points. What I’m saying makes sense. People just don’t want to agree with it because this was supposed to be all about Allen. Things change. We will still have more then enough time to see Allen. He’s not going anywhere. If Allen was playing well before the injury then I would agree. Play him. The problem is, Allen was terrible. Barkley was good. There’s no way we are saying 1 of these guys is NOT a starter and that guy is Barkley. As of right now, Barkley did in 1 game what Allen did in a month. With the same players. Let Barkley get a home start against the Jags with 2 weeks to prepare. If he struggles in the first half, pull him. If he lights it up...Let Allen watch and heal more. No harm. Only good can come from it.

[1st&ten]

 

Play Allen so Barkley can sit on the sidelines & learn then he'll be ready for next year.

[Virgil]

4 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

He doesn't and he isn't getting another start with Allen expected back.  Barkley got away with a couple of floaters that should have been picked.  He's interception prone and is decent in short stints. Nothing more.  It's all about Allen who will have been out for six weeks by next Sunday and not some journeyman lightning in a bottle retread.  The Bills have been down this road too many times and I'm shocked how many fans just keep saying "Thank You Sir May I Have Another". Enough of this shortsighted mindset. 

 

We have 3 wins and the season is done. This is where you find out.  Yes, he had some crap throws. But he also connected on more deep balls than we have in two seasons.  If that’s how is after being rusty, maybe it gets better.  

 

I don’t believe anyone is owed anything until they prove it.  This is as good a time as any to let him prove it.  

 

Here’s my question.  If Allen was out 5 more weeks and Barkley goes 5-1 over those games and looks like he did against the Jets, do you still start Allen when healthy?

 

I don’t. I start who wins unless I have a Brady/Rodgers who’s proven it 

3 minutes ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

It’s a good thing every team doesn’t think that way. Might have never gotten a Kurt Warner. Doug Flutie. Rich Gannon. Nick Foles last year. Steve Young. Brett Favre. Vinny Testerverde. Case Kenum. Kirk Cousins. Or any guy that didn’t show a lot right away but then made the most of their opportunity later on. I know there are 50 more I just am going to use a few to get the point across.

 

Barkley has been behind an established starter at EVERY stop. He has NEVER gotten a real chance to play. The only stretch of starting he had was with a pitiful Bears team that was completely out of it. He played in 6 games and threw for over 300 yds in half of them. We haven’t thrown for over 300 yds three times in the last 5 seasons combined. Then he started last week and in less then 2 weeks with the team, led the worst offense in recent history to 41 points. What I’m saying makes sense. People just don’t want to agree with it because this was supposed to be all about Allen. Things change. We will still have more then enough time to see Allen. He’s not going anywhere. If Allen was playing well before the injury then I would agree. Play him. The problem is, Allen was terrible. Barkley was good. There’s no way we are saying 1 of these guys is NOT a starter and that guy is Barkley. As of right now, Barkley did in 1 game what Allen did in a month. With the same players. Let Barkley get a home start against the Jags with 2 weeks to prepare. If he struggles in the first half, pull him. If he lights it up...Let Allen watch and heal more. No harm. Only good can come from it.

 

Also, this 

[26CornerBlitz]

5 minutes ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:

It’s a good thing every team doesn’t think that way. Might have never gotten a Kurt Warner. Doug Flutie. Rich Gannon. Nick Foles last year. Steve Young. Brett Favre. Vinny Testerverde. Case Kenum. Kirk Cousins. Or any guy that didn’t show a lot right away but then made the most of their opportunity later on. I know there are 50 more I just am going to use a few to get the point across.

 

Barkley has been behind an established starter at EVERY stop. He has NEVER gotten a real chance to play. The only stretch of starting he had was with a pitiful Bears team that was completely out of it. He played in 6 games and threw for over 300 yds in half of them. We haven’t thrown for over 300 yds three times in the last 5 seasons combined. Then he started last week and in less then 2 weeks with the team, led the worst offense in recent history to 41 points. What I’m saying makes sense. People just don’t want to agree with it because this was supposed to be all about Allen. Things change. We will still have more then enough time to see Allen. He’s not going anywhere. If Allen was playing well before the injury then I would agree. Play him. The problem is, Allen was terrible. Barkley was good. There’s no way we are saying 1 of these guys is NOT a starter and that guy is Barkley. As of right now, Barkley did in 1 game what Allen did in a month. With the same players. Let Barkley get a home start against the Jags with 2 weeks to prepare. If he struggles in the first half, pull him. If he lights it up...Let Allen watch and heal more. No harm. Only good can come from it.

 

Name all the guys you'd like. Barkley is Barkley as a player who should be judged on his own individual strengths and weaknesses.  Why do you keep arguing for something so shortsighted that's already decided the other way?  3-7 record with six weeks out due to injury says it's Allen time along with many other young players we saw last week. 

 

2 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

We have 3 wins and the season is done. This is where you find out.  Yes, he had some crap throws. But he also connected on more deep balls than we have in two seasons.  If that’s how is after being rusty, maybe it gets better.  

 

I don’t believe anyone is owed anything until they prove it.  This is as good a time as any to let him prove it.  

 

Here’s my question.  If Allen was out 5 more weeks and Barkley goes 5-1 over those games and looks like he did against the Jets, do you still start Allen when healthy?

 

I don’t. I start who wins unless I have a Brady/Rodgers who’s proven it 

 

Also, this 

 

He's not out five more weeks so I'm not playing make believe.  It's Allen time with an eye on 2019 and beyond. 

Edited November 17, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz

[US Egg]

1 hour ago, Skins Malone said:

God you guys are moronic. 

So you're a G-O-D revering person who calls others names.....

 

.....don't think you'll gain favor with you know who with that attitude.   

[John in Jax]

13 minutes ago, Virgil said:

 

I don’t understand this logic.  He’s not old. If he works, he works.  I think he deserves another start after his last game.  If he bombs, then okay.  But I agree that he should start until he proves he’s still the Matt Barkley of old.  

 

To bench the QB that led the best offensive performance of McDermott’s career doesn’t make complete sense to me.  

 

I get what we put into Allen and want him to become, but it Barkley can keep doing what he did, what’s the problem?  Again, until he doesn’t.  

Agree with this 100%, and what's really puzzling is that BEFORE the season started, I'm pretty sure the overwhelming opinion on this board was "don't RUSH Allen in to the starting role, and ruin him! Let him sit on the sidelines like so many other young QBs have done."

[gjv001]

3 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

This is a weakness for McDermott that shows up repeatedly. 

 

He should start Barkely because the Bills kicked butt behind Barkely. It is that simple.

 

Barkely should be able to prove it was either a fluke, or not. The team deserves that.

 

Instead they will start Allen for no other reason other than they drafted him.

 

How is the team supposed to be positive and stoked when they know they finally had a tremendous victory and in response the coaches pulled the starting QB?

 

What if Allen does the most likely thing, and struggles? What if it is so bad they have to pull him? Then he is behind the 8 ball if you ask me. They are risking that for no good enough reason.

 

This staff paints themselves into corners where the only possible non-disaster outcome is that their plan goes exactly the way they envision.

 

So lets hope Allen does great because if he doesn't we will have a better playing QB sitting on the bench just because the coach says so.

 

And the team and us fans will never know for sure if Barkley was a fluke or not.

 

If Barkely starts and does great, then there is no down side. If he starts and flops, then we have Allen and we put him in next time. The only down side this way is that Allen loses a game of practice.

 

If Allen starts and does great it will be the first time, and it will be great. But it is unlikely. And if he starts and flops badly then you have all kinds of trouble. 

 

The decision is easy and as usual with the QB spot  the coaching staff  made the wrong one.

 

 

 

Thanks for your opinion. But I think you're very wrong!