Buffalo Bills 2018-2019

[LGR4GM]

13 minutes ago, SDS said:

BECAUSE NATE PETERMAN ***** SUCKS FAR MORE THAN THEY THOUGHT.

BECAUSE NATE PETERMAN ***** SUCKS FAR MORE THAN THEY THOUGHT.

How the f##k did an NFL coach and GM not see that Peterman sucks exactly this much. HOW!? Only answer is because they are in denial or oblivious. 

Just now, SDS said:

Meh. If someone is asking why Peterman isn’t  starting as a means proving/disproving an argument - then I’m not really sure it is an honest discussion. 

Why is Allen starting? 

[Andrew Amerk]

[SDS]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

How the f##k did an NFL coach and GM not see that Peterman sucks exactly this much. HOW!? Only answer is because they are in denial or oblivious. 

A lot of people would like to know. Again, I think SM found a Christian soulmate who works hard, but doesn’t have the talent, but SM doesn’t want to admit it. 

[SDS]

7 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Trading McCarron was a mistake if the plan was to have Allen come through this season healthy.  There was absolutely no way the Bills were not going to get at least 1 QB injured behind this O-line.  Now, in a worst case, he suffered an injury which COULD cost him 2019 as well.  It should have been McCarron taking that pounding.  (Nasty as that is to say.)

That McCarron didn't beat out preseason All Pro Nathan Peterman shouldn't have been the reason to can McCarron.  McCarron actually looked good in the playoffs.  Keep him on the roster so that if Peterman gets injured or reverts to last season's play, there is a buffer before Allen is forced into action. Odds are, the McCarron they'd actually have had this season was closer to what the Bengals had than what we sawin the preseason.

They didn't need the cap space & a 5th rounder realistically will get you a backup LB, a rotational DL, or a project OL.  The Bills need these things, but they have a greater need to properly develop Allen.

I’m not in the locker room. I don’t know what was said to McCarron. In a vacuum, what you said makes sense. But that didn’t happen. Why?

Clearly Beane valued the 5th over the alternative. JoeB suggested that McCarron may not have been on board with the position he found himself in and may need to have been moved for attitude reasons. Perhaps it was also contrary to what they told him at signing and they were trying to do “the right thing”. 

[darksabre]

1 minute ago, SDS said:

I’m not in the locker room. I don’t know what was said to McCarron. In a vacuum, what you said makes sense. But that didn’t happen. Why?

Clearly Beane valued the 5th over the alternative. JoeB suggested that McCarron may not have been on board with the position he found himself in and may need to have been moved for attitude reasons. Perhaps it was also contrary to what they told him at signing and they were trying to do “the right thing”. 

So Beane valued a 5th round pick more than he valued not throwing his raw rookie QB to the wolves? 

A 5th round pick for Josh Allen's elbow. 

[SDS]

6 minutes ago, darksabre said:

So Beane valued a 5th round pick more than he valued not throwing his raw rookie QB to the wolves? 

A 5th round pick for Josh Allen's elbow. 

Well, I don't think that exact trade was considered at the time. ?

If you go back to the summer and preseason - the field reporters will tell you Peterman won that job. It was not a surprise that he started the season. It is hard to comprehend coaches whiffing so badly on an evaluation, but they managed it. You may not believe the plan was to start McCarron in the beginning. You may not believe Peterman was plan B. I believe those things and I think all their actions support those decisions. 

[darksabre]

2 minutes ago, SDS said:

Well, I don't think that exact trade was considered at the time. ?

If you go back to the summer and preseason - the field reporters will tell you Peterman won that job. It was not a surprise that he started the season. It is hard to comprehend coaches whiffing so badly on an evaluation, but they managed it. You may not believe the plan was to start McCarron in the beginning. You may not believe Peterman was plan B. I believe those things and I think all their actions support those decisions. 

I believe both of those things. I still don't see any reason for removing the cushion of having two warm bodies in front of Allen on the depth chart. Performance of those warm bodies is irrelevant. 

Regardless of the "why", they acted stupidly. 

[Hoss]

45 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I don't want him either. I think there are other positions of need and other players we should be looking at. 

This team needs almost literally everything. Wherever you end up, sit there and take the best player available that isn’t a safety or running back. If it’s Ed Oliver or the like that’s fine. You mentioned trading down if they get a top three pick which I couldn’t disagree with more. This team is mostly talentless. Take the top talent when you get a chance to get it. Teams that trade out don’t often end up with much to show for it.

I don’t think Bosa will be the BPA at that point.

[Taro T]

26 minutes ago, SDS said:

I’m not in the locker room. I don’t know what was said to McCarron. In a vacuum, what you said makes sense. But that didn’t happen. Why?

Clearly Beane valued the 5th over the alternative. JoeB suggested that McCarron may not have been on board with the position he found himself in and may need to have been moved for attitude reasons. Perhaps it was also contrary to what they told him at signing and they were trying to do “the right thing”. 

Why?  Good f###ing question.  

I'm certain they believed at the time they were doing the right thing.  But it was EASILY and widely predicted that a QB would get injured behind this line & though Peterman looked good in the preseason there were MANY that thought he has no business in the NFL.  (I wasn't one of those.  I thought he could be a Pennington sort if developed properly.  Oooops.)  They HAD to believe  there was a more than reasonable chance that Allen would be starting by the 5th game at the latest w/ only Peterman in front of him.  Whether they found that acceptable or didn't foresee that; either way it seriously calls their O evaluation skills & strategy into question.  Especially when Allen was soooo raw & had/has so much more developing/growing to do.

How big of a locker room cancer does McCarron have to be to make the decision to punt him the right one?  And how do they NOT bring in another plan B (or C or D) guy after McCarron was jettisoned.  Even if they secretly are ok w/ L's this season, because next year is the target; just simply from a keeping Allen properly developing, with a reasonable chance of success, AND healthy perspective, the plan was seriously flawed.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Taro T

[SDS]

3 minutes ago, Hoss said:

This team needs almost literally everything. Wherever you end up, sit there and take the best player available that isn’t a safety or running back. If it’s Ed Oliver or the like that’s fine. You mentioned trading down if they get a top three pick which I couldn’t disagree with more. This team is mostly talentless. Take the top talent when you get a chance to get it. Teams that trade out don’t often end up with much to show for it.

I don’t think Bosa will be the BPA at that point.

Agreed. They mostly offloaded middling talent that may be better than what they have now, but not good enough to make any real noise. They lack high end talent in every offensive position (except the fumes McCoy is running on).

[darksabre]

4 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Why?  Good f###ing question.  

I'm certain they believed at the time they were doing the right thing.  But it was EASILY and widely predicted that a QB would get injured behind this line & though Peterman looked good in the preseason there were MANY that thought he has no business in the NFL.  (I wasn't one of those.  I thought he could be a Pennington sort if developed properly.  Oooops.)  They HAD to believe  there was a more than reasonable chance that Allen would be starting by the 5th game at the latest w/ only Peterman in front of him.  Whether they found that acceptable or didn't foresee that; either way it seriously calls their O evaluation skills & strategy into question.  Especially when Allen was soooo raw & had/has so much more developing/growing to do.

How big of a locker room cancer does McCarron have to be to make the decision to punt him the right one?  And how do they NOT bring in another plan B (or C or D) guy after McCarron was jettisoned.  Even if they secretly are ok w/ L's this season, because next year is the target; just simply from a keeping Allen properly develooing, with a reasonable chance of success, AND healthy perspective, the plan was seriously flawed.

Amen. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

CBSsports.com is reporting that the Bills players don’t want Peterman starting on Monday night.

[ubkev]

1 minute ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

CBSsports.com is reporting that the Bills players don’t want Peterman starting on Monday night.

Oh but I do!

[WildCard]

6 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

CBSsports.com is reporting that the Bills players don’t want Peterman starting on Monday night.

You have to cut him

[Taro T]

9 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

CBSsports.com is reporting that the Bills players don’t want Peterman starting on Monday night.

So, the Bills players agree w/ everybody else that isn't cheering for the Colts nor related to Peterman (& the expectation is that even most of those folks don't want him starting either.).

[inkman]

56 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

How the f##k did an NFL coach and GM not see that Peterman sucks exactly this much. HOW!? Only answer is because they are in denial or oblivious. 

Why is Allen starting? 

Draft position and lack of planning 

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, SDS said:

Meh. If someone is asking why Peterman isn’t  starting as a means proving/disproving an argument - then I’m not really sure it is an honest discussion. 

What in what? I guess I meant it when I said that I had no idea what certain people were talking about anymore. To whom is this even directed?

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Why is Allen starting? 

Excellent effing question.

56 minutes ago, SDS said:

A lot of people would like to know. Again, I think SM found a Christian soulmate who works hard, but doesn’t have the talent, but SM doesn’t want to admit it. 

Right. Beane and McDermott had a terrible plan and/or did a horrendous job of executing whatever plan they had when it came to QB play in 2018.

47 minutes ago, darksabre said:

So Beane valued a 5th round pick more than he valued not throwing his raw rookie QB to the wolves? 

A 5th round pick for Josh Allen's elbow. 

Ummm.

40 minutes ago, SDS said:

the field reporters will tell you Peterman won that job. It was not a surprise that he started the season. It is hard to comprehend coaches whiffing so badly on an evaluation, but they managed it. You may not believe the plan was to start McCarron in the beginning. You may not believe Peterman was plan B. I believe those things and I think all their actions support those decisions. 

Oh, heavens -- L to the O to the L. 

Come.

ON.

"Field reporters." Setting aside that I can't recall a single ringing endorsement from a reporter: What bearing would their thoughts have on the matter? The chatter I heard and read from other FO's was that the Bills were being laughed at for rolling Peterman out there.

As for the balance: I believe they planned on starting McCarron. Apparently, they found that to be a Grade A eff up. And I also believe Peterman was their Plan B. Goodness knows how history has adjudged that decision. So, yes -- "their actions" have shown them to be complete and utter morons when it comes to the QB position and developing their 7th overall pick at the position.

I trust there's no disagreement on those points?

Edited October 16, 2018 by That Aud Smell

[LGR4GM]

40 minutes ago, Hoss said:

This team needs almost literally everything. Wherever you end up, sit there and take the best player available that isn’t a safety or running back. If it’s Ed Oliver or the like that’s fine. You mentioned trading down if they get a top three pick which I couldn’t disagree with more. This team is mostly talentless. Take the top talent when you get a chance to get it. Teams that trade out don’t often end up with much to show for it.

I don’t think Bosa will be the BPA at that point.

I don't agree. 

36 minutes ago, SDS said:

Agreed. They mostly offloaded middling talent that may be better than what they have now, but not good enough to make any real noise. They lack high end talent in every offensive position (except the fumes McCoy is running on).

And you can draft top end receivers and lineman basically everywhere from pick 5 to 55. 

[SDS]

A quick convo with a trusted media member with daily contact with the Bills:

”The plan was to start AJ or Nate.
Allen’s apparent progress in first 2 preseason games opened possibility of him starting season, then the Bengals game happened.
They were planning on keeping AJ until the Raiders approached with trade offer.”

FWIW...

[darksabre]

3 minutes ago, SDS said:

A quick convo with a trusted media member with daily contact with the Bills:

”The plan was to start AJ or Nate.
Allen’s apparent progress in first 2 preseason games opened possibility of him starting season, then the Bengals game happened.
They were planning on keeping AJ until the Raiders approached with trade offer.”

FWIW...

That's the red flag right there. That limited pre-season action was enough to make them completely change the plan? 

Things that make you go "hmm".

[That Aud Smell]

5 minutes ago, SDS said:

A quick convo with a trusted media member with daily contact with the Bills:

”The plan was to start AJ or Nate.
Allen’s apparent progress in first 2 preseason games opened possibility of him starting season, then the Bengals game happened.
They were planning on keeping AJ until the Raiders approached with trade offer.”

FWIW...

1 minute ago, darksabre said:

That's the red flag right there. That limited pre-season action was enough to make them completely change the plan? 

Unmitigated idiocy. Lunacy, even.

Also, a big shoutout to the dim-witted ... process that somehow led to them determining that, yep, young Nathan is pretty darn good.

 

[pi2000]

7 minutes ago, SDS said:

A quick convo with a trusted media member with daily contact with the Bills:

”The plan was to start AJ or Nate.
Allen’s apparent progress in first 2 preseason games opened possibility of him starting season, then the Bengals game happened.
They were planning on keeping AJ until the Raiders approached with trade offer.”

FWIW...

That's fine if they wanted to trade AJ, but they needed to sign a veteran immediately after that happened.    They failed.

[JJFIVEOH]

I'm just glad the train wreck started early this year. This way I don't have to go spending more money at a bar to watch the game. 

[That Aud Smell]

10 minutes ago, pi2000 said:

That's fine if they wanted to trade AJ, but they needed to sign a veteran immediately after that happened. 

[LGR4GM]

If the plan was to have AJ start and he failed, the plan failed. If the plan was to have AJ or Nathan start, the plan failed. If the plan was to have Allen start and take his licks, the plan still failed because his backup was Peterman.