Tyrod in Concussion protocol (update - Cleared 9/5)

[reddogblitz]

9-7, 9-7, 9-7 hard to get in the bottom (top) 10 when you constantly draft 12, 13 and 14. By then any quality QB is long gone.

 

But 7 of last year's 12 playoff QBs were not "long gone" by the 11th pick.

 

What we've been constantly doing is picking the wrong guy.

[26CornerBlitz]

But 7 of last year's 12 playoff QBs were not "long gone" by the 11th pick.

 

What we've been constantly doing is picking the wrong guy.

 

It's a false narrative that is repeated often as a justification for tanking.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

You're laughable. It's my damn opinion just like you have one, right!

 

You and a few other want to be smartest guys in the room just love telling others, just how wrong their opinions are. You're the laughable one.

 

Peterman has not done enough to justify taking the starters job imo. Sub 60% passing and sub 6.0 YPA. I know he had plays called back on penalties, but that happens to every QB and player. He had 1 TD in 80 passes. Tyrod had 3 in his last REAL game.

 

He played alright, but we know he won't drive the ball down the field, and we know he won't be able to make plays with his legs. What does he do when his first target isn't there? If Tyrod gets injured, he's going to need to be a lot better than that to help the team win games, as well as justify keeping the job when he returns.

But 7 of last year's 12 playoff QBs were not "long gone" by the 11th pick.

 

What we've been constantly doing is picking the wrong guy.

 

Or just - not picking QBs at all.

Edited September 6, 2017 by dneveu

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Full circle again - Yes I'm quoting myself because its back to this -

 

 

I do not discount what TT has done over 2 seasons. He is the starter. That being said he has weaknesses and even those arguing with me agree with.

 

The problem as I see it is that people take offense when people like you or I say "He NP does show promise".

 

They twist what people say to indicate that we just want to trash TT and promote NP. When I asked them to prove I said as much - sound of crickets.

 

Its a new season, new coaches, new scheme. No one can claim what will happen. We can only guess and hope for the best from whomever the coaches put on the field.

 

I am no expert but I believe the odds of getting a 2018 1st, or 2nd draft pick will be costly and as you touched on - nothing is a guarantee.

[Gugny]

 

Peterman has not done enough to justify taking the starters job imo. Sub 60% passing and sub 6.0 YPA. I know he had plays called back on penalties, but that happens to every QB and player.

 

He played alright, but we know he won't drive the ball down the field, and we know he won't be able to make plays with his legs. What does he do when his first target isn't there? If Tyrod gets injured, he's going to need to be a lot better than that to help the team win games, as well as justify keeping the job when he returns.

 

Or just - not picking QBs at all.

 

I agree 100% that Peterman hasn't done enough to justify taking the starter's job.

 

However, I also feel that Tyrod Taylor has done more than enough to show us that he hasn't justified being a starter, either.

 

I get the desire to give Peterman more time to develop. Part of me even agrees that they should proceed with caution.

 

But the other part of me would rather see a question mark out there - and to let him gain real-life experience, than to put a QB out there who's proven that he's not good enough and - after six seasons - never will be.

[26CornerBlitz]

 

Peterman has not done enough to justify taking the starters job imo. Sub 60% passing and sub 6.0 YPA. I know he had plays called back on penalties, but that happens to every QB and player. He had 1 TD in 80 passes. Tyrod had 3 in his last REAL game.

 

He played alright, but we know he won't drive the ball down the field, and we know he won't be able to make plays with his legs. What does he do when his first target isn't there? If Tyrod gets injured, he's going to need to be a lot better than that to help the team win games, as well as justify keeping the job when he returns.

 

Or just - not picking QBs at all.

 

This has been the issue along with liking certain QBs (Wilson, Prescott), but waiting too long to pull the trigger.

[thebandit27]

Full circle again - Yes I'm quoting myself because its back to this -

 

 

And I still don't see anyone taking offense to that.

 

I myself only ever took issue with folks stating as fact that Peterman has done close to enough to earn the starting job.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

 

I agree 100% that Peterman hasn't done enough to justify taking the starter's job.

 

However, I also feel that Tyrod Taylor has done more than enough to show us that he hasn't justified being a starter, either.

 

I get the desire to give Peterman more time to develop. Part of me even agrees that they should proceed with caution.

 

But the other part of me would rather see a question mark out there - and to let him gain real-life experience, than to put a QB out there who's proven that he's not good enough and - after six seasons - never will be.

How may times do wee need to explain ourselves that way before people understand?

[thebandit27]

How may times do wee need to explain ourselves that way before people understand?

 

About the same number of times that I'll have to explain that nobody is misunderstanding you.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

 

And I still don't see anyone taking offense to that.

 

I myself only ever took issue with folks stating as fact that Peterman has done close to enough to earn the starting job.

you post is laughable just laughable

 

Perception bandit.

 

I'm not arguing. I'm trying to show you how it may appear to others.

[Gugny]

How may times do wee need to explain ourselves that way before people understand?

 

In fairness, I think there are others who are saying that Peterman won the job in preseason. I disagree with that and I think that's where a lot of the pushback is coming from.

[thebandit27]

you post is laughable just laughable

 

Perception bandit.

 

I'm not arguing. I'm trying to show you how it may appear to others.

 

If what I posted was laughable, then you'd be justified in calling it out as such.

 

For example: Jonathan Williams should be the Bills' starting RB. He performed MUCH better than McCoy in this offense behind this offensive line in this preseason.

Edited September 6, 2017 by thebandit27

[Scott7975]

You're laughable. It's my damn opinion just like you have one, right!

 

You and a few other want to be smartest guys in the room just love telling others, just how wrong their opinions are. You're the laughable one.

When you start talking about how a coach feels I think you are more on the statement side than the opinion side.

[Figster]

 

I'm 100% certain that you aren't referring to me; otherwise please show me where I insulted anyone. Calling a questionable-opinion-stated-as-fact "laughable" is not an insult.

 

^ now this here, that's an insult...and I suppose I'd feel insulted if I bothered to let other people's opinions of me have an effect.

 

It is indeed laughable to state as a fact (you did not state it as an opinion) that a rookie 5th round pick that looked mediocre against 2nd and 3rd stringers in the preseason gives the team a better chance to win than a 2-year starter with a winning record.

 

It cannot be backed up by anything other than an extra helping of opinion.

Do you realize the G Roman O made a QB look good thats currently unemployed because of the low volume of passing attempts?

 

Or that the newly installed Dennison O requires the QB to work from the pocket?

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

 

About the same number of times that I'll have to explain that nobody is misunderstanding you.

See my quote.

 

Prove it. Don't get defensive. Prove that I said NP is better equipped to be the starter than TT.

 

Saying NP looked good and shows promise is all I have said.

 

Now on the topic of TT. We all know TT has things he needs to improve on. Saying that doesn't mean NP is 100% ready.

 

IF the Bills are in Tank mode playing TT doesn't make sense if you intend on being a bad team.

Edited September 6, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

I wouldn't start a rookie over an incumbent starter unless the team had an open competition (we didn't), and he earned the job outright. He's had some time with the ones due to injury, and the coaching staff has seen more of what he can do than maybe they planned. We saw some good stuff from him in the preseason.

 

He's already the #2 over another player that the team brought in with more experience. Now he'll get some experience in game planning, and film study prior to each match-up. He likely has a long way to go there. They can now spend some more time in practice getting him reps on what he most needs to work on, and get him ready for when he inevitably steps in.

 

Starting NP over TT at this juncture would alienate the team imo, and signal the thought that the season is lost before it begins. TT needs to play poorly enough to lose the job, or get injured, for it to feel like NP deserves a chance to start.

Edited September 6, 2017 by dneveu

[thebandit27]

Do you realize the G Roman O made a QB look good thats currently unemployed because of the low volume of passing attempts?

 

Or that the newly installed Dennison O requires the QB to work from the pocket?

 

What does that have to do with what I've said in this thread?

 

Furthermore, why would Dennison not fit his offense around what the team does well? Does it not make sense to see what he does with Taylor operating when games count before we say what his offense will or won't ask of Taylor?

 

Lastly, since you've been reading my posts for many years now, when have I ever shown myself not to understand rudimentary football observations?

 

See my quote.

 

Prove it. Don't get defensive. Prove that I said NP is better equipped to be the starter than TT.

 

Saying NP looked good and shows promise is all I have said.

 

Now on the topic of TT. We all know TT has things he needs to improve on. Saying that doesn't mean NP is 100% ready.

 

IF the Bills are in Tank mode playing TT doesn't make sense if you intend on being a bad team.

 

Oh. My. Word.

 

I have never, once, ever, said that you said Peterman is better equipped--which is the exact point I am trying to make. Nobody is misunderstanding you. Certain folks (see the post from old school above) are claiming that Peterman should be given the job, and others (like myself) are refuting that. You came along and defended your view despite nobody taking issue with it.

 

Relax.

Edited September 6, 2017 by thebandit27

[reddogblitz]

Peterman has not done enough to justify taking the starters job imo. Sub 60% passing and sub 6.0 YPA. I know he had plays called back on penalties, but that happens to every QB and player. He had 1 TD in 80 passes. Tyrod had 3 in his last REAL game.

 

He played alright, but we know he won't drive the ball down the field, and we know he won't be able to make plays with his legs. What does he do when his first target isn't there? If Tyrod gets injured, he's going to need to be a lot better than that to help the team win games, as well as justify keeping the job when he returns.

 

 

Or just - not picking QBs at all.

How may times do wee need to explain ourselves that way before people understand?

 

I understand, I just think it's a dumb idea.

Do you realize the G Roman O made a QB look good thats currently unemployed because of the low volume of passing attempts?

 

Or that the newly installed Dennison O requires the QB to work from the pocket?

Looked like to me in PS Nasty Nate worked predominantly from shotgun whereas Hotrod worked predominantly under center.

[Figster]

 

What does that have to do with what I've said in this thread?

 

Furthermore, why would Dennison not fit his offense around what the team does well? Does it not make sense to see what he does with Taylor operating when games count before we say what his offense will or won't ask of Taylor?

 

Lastly, since you've been reading my posts for many years now, when have I ever shown myself not to understand rudimentary football observations?

 

 

Oh. My. Word.

 

I have never, once, ever, said that you said Peterman is better equipped--which is the exact point I am trying to make. Nobody is misunderstanding you. Certain folks (see the post from old school above) are claiming that Peterman should be given the job, and others (like myself) are refuting that. You came along and defended your view despite nobody taking issue with it.

 

Relax.

I have much respect for your posting bandit

[thebandit27]

Have I said that? No I don't think I have. Please don't confuse me with them. I'm not here to argue.

It wasn't laughable. I was trying to make a a point. I guess point proven. Sheesh - take a breath man and quit thinking I'm attacking you.

 

Ok...you are very confused here. I'm not sure you're even reading my posts anymore. I understood your point, and made as much clear.

 

I have said, repeatedly, that I'm not confusing your opinion of Peterman with anyone else's. See below:

 

 

 

Oh. My. Word.

 

I have never, once, ever, said that you said Peterman is better equipped--which is the exact point I am trying to make. Nobody is misunderstanding you. Certain folks (see the post from old school above) are claiming that Peterman should be given the job, and others (like myself) are refuting that. You came along and defended your view despite nobody taking issue with it.

 

Relax.

There are, but it's not me. The silliness of yesterday is back and I'm done spinning wheels.

 

 

 

No. It. Isn't. You are misunderstanding people that took issue with old school's post.

I have much respect for your posting bandit

 

that was your first mistake