twoandfourteen

So a rookie playing in his first ever game has LESS of a margin for error than a future Hall of Fame guy. Got it. Maybe, instead of excusing BR and condemning NP -- look at it like, "Well, 5 INT games are really bad -- but they happen sometimes, even to the best guys to ever play the game. So, its entirely conceivable for a rookie to have a meltdown like that. Maybe we should slow down and wait a little bit longer to see how he does next year?" But no. There's no learning curve allowed, there's no such thing as "rookie mistakes" anymore. We'll still give Tyrod three full seasons to punt the ball away and maybe kick a FG if we're lucky all day long. All he needs are "more weapons" and a "better defense". I don't know what NP's going to be -- he could be out of the league in two years for all I care. I'm just blown away by the lack of any nuance when it comes to that guy.

"Meh" is worlds better than "Tyrod".

I'm saying the guy played well under extremely difficult circumstances in the Colts game. That's it. I'm not breaking down film, here. I couldn't care less. Did he go in and get the job done? The answer is yes. Talking about the big picture. Ben Roethlisberger threw 5 picks in a game this year, too. By your rationale, Pittsburgh probably should have cut him after that one then.

I agree with this -- probably the only really fair assessment of 2 after this circus season.

That somehow Peterman's appearances this season 'prove' that you can "win with" Tyrod and that McD was an idiot for making a change. The reality is that Tyrod is responsible for that decision being made. His inability to play at even a barely functional level forced Peterman into the discussion. Taylor, as a 7 year veteran and 3 year starter has been just as detrimental to the offense as Peterman had been. Punting all day long and only scoring 1 FG isn't that much of an improvement over a couple of INTs from your rookie. At least the rookie is trying to make something happen while your veteran is fixated on protecting the only statistic keeping him relevant. You could say that about the rookie seasons of lots of legitimately good starting QBs over the years. You're also wrong. Peterman's game against the Colts actually happened and was encouraging. I'll hold off on dismissing the guy until next year. He had some really bad moments, but also had a couple of good ones. All in all, he played like you would expect a late-round rookie QB to play.

That's fair. Maybe I had you mixed up with the guys who are absolutely adamant & convinced that Peterman is already finished and has no shot at an NFL career. I don't particularly care if he does or not -- I just have a problem with how the narrative for NP has been twisted.

That QB couldn't make that throw (along with many others) for 3 years. But now it's a problem -- when a 5th round rookie comes off the bench cold and is thrown into probably the most difficult situation possible for any QB. Got it.

Ding Ding Ding!

Yikes. If Smith is terrible... then what does that make Tyrod?

Or are more people realizing how virtuous and morally superior they can look to their friends by pointing out injustice, even when it's not really there? I hear that kind of social capital is big with the SJW crowd these days, amirite?

Because that is how all the really good teams approach their QBs in playoff games. I'm sure in New England, Bill is constantly trying to figure out how to not put Brady in position to make plays. Or in Pittsburgh, they really game plan to make sure they limit just how much is put on Roethlisberger's shoulders. Green Bay's coaches are keenly aware of the perils of relying on Aaron Rodgers in key moments of the game, and try to stay away from that. I am so glad I don't have to watch 5 take another snap in a Bills uniform.

The fact that he's only played roughly 4 1/2 non-consecutive quarters of professional football -- 2 of which were in a historic and never-before-seen blizzard, 2 were against an epic pass rush in his first start, and then a few minutes here and there, including going in cold to a potentially game-winning last-minute drive in the first Bills playoff game in 17 years. All in all, despite the limited playing time I'd say it was an eventful season for the rookie. However, none of that really allowed for any sort of real evaluation. If you have a chance, go take a look at some of the rookie year performances of some of big name QBs out there. You probably would have written off a young QB named Brett Favre, who only completed two passes in his rookie season for the Atlanta Falcons -- both of them to the Washington Redskins. Of course, Peterman is not the next Favre. But you can't pass a final judgement on NP's career after a handful of appearances in his rookie year. He did some good things, too. The Colts game was uncharted territory for everyone involved, and he played great -- especially considering it came after the Chargers mess. He could have easily packed it in after that, but came back and played very well in the snow. Well, your mans TT made a strong case that maybe he wasn't on multiple occasions this season.

Tell 'em! Taylor for the HOF because he's a 7 year veteran who has a slight advantage over a 5th round rookie.

BUT HE DOESN'T TURN THE BA... wait a minute....

The histrionics here are impressive. If Peterman is inept at throwing the football, then what exactly is Taylor? Because he's run one of the worst passing offenses in the NFL for the entirety of his career as a starter.

Absolutely right. In order to keep the "You can win with Tyrod" delusion going, they use a 5th round rookie QB and the stupid INT % stat -- simply because there is no other rational argument, evidence, or support for that ridiculous claim. It simple deflection from Tyrod to NP, since Tyrod's poor performance and prospects as a starter are indefensible. What is lost, however, is that by constantly drawing the comparison of a 7-year veteran to a 5th round rookie, it only makes Taylor look even worse. I mean, it's not like they can try to make the case for Taylor by comparing him to an actual good proven QB. Dude got smoked by Blake Bortles today. He's a great professional and a class act in the locker room, but he's a bad starting QB.

To Peterman's credit -- that kid has seen more ridiculous scenarios in his first season than any rookie could have ever expected. The 5 INT game, the Blizzard, and then getting thrown into the potentially game-winning drive in the last minute of a playoff game. I don't know what the future is for this kid, but he's earned at least next year to try and figure it out. I do think he has the potential for a much higher ceiling than Taylor, but that's really not saying much. There's probably 35-40 players in the league right now and coming in next year's draft that you could say the same thing about. I mean, if there are still idiots around that want to give Tyrod an 8th year to pretend to be a starting-calibre QB in the NFL, then NP deserves at least one more season to make a case for at least clipboard duty somewhere. Maybe he would have also had a couple of TD passes too. Or even 1. Taylor is a punting machine. What's really the difference in the end?

I'd be on board for this one. Good call -- didn't think of that.

He is a very-below average starting QB, and in reality is a high-end backup.

Because it's a wildly overrated stat that Taylor keeps artificially low by avoiding pretty much all NFL throws. Along with ridicule for Peterman's debut against the Chargers, it's literally all anyone has to stand on to make any case whatsoever for Taylor as a top 30 QB. He's a bad starting QB, and will be holding the clipboard somewhere else next season and rightfully so.

I thought you were referring to Taylor's passing ability overall. Regardless, my point still stands.

So, basically we have to use half the playbook because our JV QB throws the football like it's a baked ham.