Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
24 minutes ago, MacGyver said:

 

Yes, but the odds say, it's unlikely.  All I'm saying is no one should be full of Glee or think that Beane stole anything by receiving a 5th rounder for McCarron. That's just silly talk. As well as no one should have been pissed McCarron was traded. 

 

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

it certainly doesn't guarantee anything, but you can't be successful with the pick if you don't have it in the first place.  every draft pick is a potential opportunity.  doesn't need to be complicated.

Posted
18 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

My undying hatred for the player has never wavered. He is, without question, the worst player to ever put on a Bills uniform. Some people will say “that’s harsh” or “not true” but he is statistically the worst player to ever play the most important position in the game. He’s the worst, 2nd worst is up for debate...

 

I thought Gary Marangi was the all-time worst QB (statistically). Either way, they both SUCKED.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Yes as the starter. That was the concern, and so validated. 

 

Still in retrospect, it worked out for the Bills, not the raiders 

Right. What I was trying to say was people were angry about what it meant for our roster, not about the compensation. I don't think anyone angrily asked how come we didn't get a 3rd or anything like that. But a lot of people said something that could be paraphrased as "Well I hope Josh is ready, otherwise this means we're starting Peterman".

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Right. What I was trying to say was people were angry about what it meant for our roster, not about the compensation. I don't think anyone angrily asked how come we didn't get a 3rd or anything like that. But a lot of people said something that could be paraphrased as "Well I hope Josh is ready, otherwise this means we're starting Peterman".

 

Yep. And it turned out josh was ready enough to get started anyway.  Not ready ready but they managed his entry 

 

I think we can let go of the worry that playing too soon would ruin him. He continued improving throughout the year. 

 

He’ll get where he does, but there is no indelible mental scar he’s eternally compromised by, other than having to watch peterman start over him that first half. 

 

 

Edited by Over 29 years of fanhood
Posted
Just now, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Yep. And it turned out josh was ready enough to get started anyway.  Not ready ready but they managed his entry 

 

I think we can let go of the worry that playing too soon would ruin him. He continued improving throughout the year. 

 

He’ll get where he does, but there is no indelible mental scar he’s eternally compromised by, other than having to watch peterman start over him that first week. 

I was on the start Allen week 1 train the day after the first round ended, so that was never a concern. Having Peterman as the only other option on the roster scared the ? out of me though. If anything happened to Josh I would've been advocating for Logan Thomas to step in, and I watched Logan's entire college career. :lol:

Posted
1 hour ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I was on the start Allen week 1 train the day after the first round ended, so that was never a concern. Having Peterman as the only other option on the roster scared the ? out of me though. If anything happened to Josh I would've been advocating for Logan Thomas to step in, and I watched Logan's entire college career. :lol:

 

I was there on Nate too. I’m just baffled what they saw differently. 

Posted

With the way Nate played in the preseason, starting Josh would have been a huge mistake, imo.  When Josh struggled and they lost games, and we all knew that would happen, every veteran on the team would have thought/said "Why not Nate, he looked better, was the best of the 3 in preseason and he won the job."  You do not want the veterans on the team to reject the rookie as the starter.  As it was, after Baltimore, no one would be lobbying for Peterman to play.

×
×
  • Create New...