Figster Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 It's nothing more than preseason hero worship this time in the form of Petermania. Nonetheless, he's still on the bench where he belongs. Until Peterman comes in and steals Taylors job out from underneath him, call it what you like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Relying on stats - good or bad - to assess a player is silly. You look for things like footwork, decisiveness, accuracy, leadership, etc. In preseason, the stats could be good or bad based on many factors. When I watched Peterman, he looked better than Tyrod at all of the things at which Tyrod stinks. Obviously, Tyrod is more mobile/dangerous with his feet. But that's not what we need. Obviously. Peterman looked good at times in preseason and also he looked bad primarily against guys playing vanilla schemes who are now watching games just like the rest of us. He did nothing special that indicated he's ready to be a starter at the NFL level. He's on the sidelines watching and learning and that is exactly where he belongs. Until Peterman comes in and steals Taylors job out from underneath him, call it what you like He's not playing unless Taylor is injured or the Bills are out of playoff contention and I'm calling it what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7975 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 (edited) Fair assessment Scott7975, If you add the dropped balls its probably up over 60% Sometimes WR's run the wrong route and it reflects on the QB. The same could be said for Tyrod, but that leads to being told its just excuses. Edited October 15, 2017 by Scott7975 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figster Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Peterman looked good at times in preseason and also he looked bad primarily against guys playing vanilla schemes who are now watching games just like the rest of us. He did nothing special that indicated he's ready to be a starter at the NFL level. He's on the sidelines watching and learning and that is exactly where he belongs. He's not playing unless Taylor is injured or the Bills are out of playoff contention and I'm calling it what it is. I believe that, and respect the HC decisions on how its being handled The same could be said for Tyrod, but that leads to being told its just excuses. true that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Peterman looked good at times in preseason and also he looked bad primarily against guys playing vanilla schemes who are now watching games just like the rest of us. He did nothing special that indicated he's ready to be a starter at the NFL level. He's on the sidelines watching and learning and that is exactly where he belongs. We have a starting QB who looks bad on most weeks. Most, as in, he's had about 4 good games in 30+ starts. We know what he is. Why not go with an unknown in a season that we're clearly going nowhere? I know I'll get - "We're (3-2) and in the hunt," from many people. Why? Why are we (3-2)? We are (3-2) because our defense is overperforming/getting lucky with tipped balls. We're (3-2) because of a BS unsportsmanlike call against Von Miller. One thing is certain - we are not (3-2) because of stellar QB play. I'm tired of winning in spite of having a crappy QB. I want to win because we have a good QB. As long as Peterman sits on the sidelines, we won't know if he's good, bad, great or horrible. What would it hurt to take a look? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 We have a starting QB who looks bad on most weeks. Most, as in, he's had about 4 good games in 30+ starts. We know what he is. Why not go with an unknown in a season that we're clearly going nowhere? I know I'll get - "We're (3-2) and in the hunt," from many people. Why? Why are we (3-2)? We are (3-2) because our defense is overperforming/getting lucky with tipped balls. We're (3-2) because of a BS unsportsmanlike call against Von Miller. One thing is certain - we are not (3-2) because of stellar QB play. I'm tired of winning in spite of having a crappy QB. I want to win because we have a good QB. As long as Peterman sits on the sidelines, we won't know if he's good, bad, great or horrible. What would it hurt to take a look? Factually incorrect in so many aspects. But carry on with your fan thinking. The Bills nor any other NFL would put Peterman in at QB to see what he can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7975 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 (edited) We have a starting QB who looks bad on most weeks. Most, as in, he's had about 4 good games in 30+ starts. We know what he is. Why not go with an unknown in a season that we're clearly going nowhere? I know I'll get - "We're (3-2) and in the hunt," from many people. Why? Why are we (3-2)? We are (3-2) because our defense is overperforming/getting lucky with tipped balls. We're (3-2) because of a BS unsportsmanlike call against Von Miller. One thing is certain - we are not (3-2) because of stellar QB play. I'm tired of winning in spite of having a crappy QB. I want to win because we have a good QB. As long as Peterman sits on the sidelines, we won't know if he's good, bad, great or horrible. What would it hurt to take a look? Coaches don't put players in based on allowing fans to take a look. They put players in they feel give them the best chance to win a football game. If they felt Peterman gave them the best chance to win a football game then he would be playing. Its that simple. Coaches see Peterman on a daily basis. Fans see a few completed passes and go oh wow. hot damn. start Peterman. Edited October 15, 2017 by Scott7975 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 (edited) Factually incorrect in so many aspects. But carry on with your fan thinking. The Bills nor any other NFL would put Peterman in at QB to see what he can do. List Tyrod's good games. I'll even get you started. SEA and MIA last year. (both losses, by the way) Edited October 15, 2017 by Gugny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 List Tyrod's good games. I'll even get you started. SEA and MIA last year. (both losses, by the way) He's had three solid to good games in this season alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 We have a starting QB who looks bad on most weeks. Most, as in, he's had about 4 good games in 30+ starts. We know what he is. Why not go with an unknown in a season that we're clearly going nowhere? I know I'll get - "We're (3-2) and in the hunt," from many people. Why? Why are we (3-2)? We are (3-2) because our defense is overperforming/getting lucky with tipped balls. We're (3-2) because of a BS unsportsmanlike call against Von Miller. One thing is certain - we are not (3-2) because of stellar QB play. I'm tired of winning in spite of having a crappy QB. I want to win because we have a good QB. As long as Peterman sits on the sidelines, we won't know if he's good, bad, great or horrible. What would it hurt to take a look? Have you considered the fact that the coaches who see Peterman every day in practice know what they have at this point? What you desperately want to see now is being seen every day in the practices. If Peterman is getting better but not ready to play then that is part of the learning process. Most of us, certainly including the organization, know what TT is and what his upside and downside are. There is no mystery to it. You have a point that the Bills aren't necessarily winning because of him but the flip side is that they aren't mostly losing because of him. On paper the Bills are still competing for a playoff spot. Is it an illusion? Maybe. If it is, so what. Why not just let the season play on and see how things materialize. If it doesn't work out as wanted then there will be an opportunity for Peterman to play. Playing him a little later means playing him when he is a little more prepared. That is the right thing for the player and for the team and for the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figster Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Have you considered the fact that the coaches who see Peterman every day in practice know what they have at this point? What you desperately want to see now is being seen every day in the practices. If Peterman is getting better but not ready to play then that is part of the learning process. Most of us, certainly including the organization, know what TT is and what his upside and downside are. There is no mystery to it. You have a point that the Bills aren't necessarily winning because of him but the flip side is that they aren't mostly losing because of him. On paper the Bills are still competing for a playoff spot. Is it an illusion? Maybe. If it is, so what. Why not just let the season play on and see how things materialize. If it doesn't work out as wanted then there will be an opportunity for Peterman to play. Playing him a little later means playing him when he is a little more prepared. That is the right thing for the player and for the team and for the fans. I think this has more to do with backing up our decision to pay Taylor starter salary then how things are shaping up on the practice field, but we have rumors... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Have you considered the fact that the coaches who see Peterman every day in practice know what they have at this point? What you desperately want to see now is being seen every day in the practices. If Peterman is getting better but not ready to play then that is part of the learning process. Most of us, certainly including the organization, know what TT is and what his upside and downside are. There is no mystery to it. You have a point that the Bills aren't necessarily winning because of him but the flip side is that they aren't mostly losing because of him. On paper the Bills are still competing for a playoff spot. Is it an illusion? Maybe. If it is, so what. Why not just let the season play on and see how things materialize. If it doesn't work out as wanted then there will be an opportunity for Peterman to play. Playing him a little later means playing him when he is a little more prepared. That is the right thing for the player and for the team and for the fans. I'm not in the "bench Tyrod" camp, yet. He's done nothing to deserve losing his job at this point. He's been better this season than he was in the previous two. Better doesn't mean good, necessarily. I also agree that time is on Peterman's side. I just want to get at least five games of Peterman in real, live action. But that's just me. I know the coaches see him in practice every day, etc. My previous post was simply stating that there is ZERO doubt that Tyrod Taylor is not the future QB of this team. That was clear when they re-signed him for less money. Because of that FACT (anyone who thinks Taylor will be here beyond this season is delusional), I can totally see why some people would rather see Peterman now, instead of waiting. It's not because anyone is saying that Peterman IS the future (as much as the parishioners want to believe that). It is because we don't know WHAT Peterman is, and the only way to find out is to see him on the field against the big boy defenses. It's silly to think he'll go in there and tear the league up; especially with this offense. I will re-state - it's more about looking at what he does well and what he doesn't do well. If he holds the ball too long, or takes stupid sacks, or doesn't throw the ball away when he should ... regardless of a win or loss, those are big red flags. Unless the coaches already feel they know that Peterman definitely doesn't have it, then they owe it to themselves (not the fans) to see what he can do in real games. Go Bills! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7975 Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 I think this has more to do with backing up our decision to pay Taylor starter salary then how things are shaping up on the practice field, but we have rumors... You are entitled to your opinion but I think you are wrong. Why would Taylor be the only position on the team where contract is why he plays? Dareus has the highest contract on the team and he barely gets any snaps. Glenn is the second highest and is in competition with a rookie. Yes he has been injured but its clear as day the coaches like the rookie better. That leads me to believe the coaches still feel Tyrod gives them the best chance. That may change in the future, but right now that is how they feel. You could argue that the coaches are wrong in what they believe. I don't think I could even argue against it all that much other than experience TT has because I do think Peterman has some traits that Tyrod doesn't and also that this type of offense its the good traits to have. I just don't think contract has anything to do with who they put on the field whatsoever. These coaches want to win football games. They aren't going to hinder the team because one guy makes more money. They have shown the exact opposite when it comes to Dareus and Glenn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figster Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 (edited) You are entitled to your opinion but I think you are wrong. Why would Taylor be the only position on the team where contract is why he plays? Dareus has the highest contract on the team and he barely gets any snaps. Glenn is the second highest and is in competition with a rookie. Yes he has been injured but its clear as day the coaches like the rookie better. That leads me to believe the coaches still feel Tyrod gives them the best chance. That may change in the future, but right now that is how they feel. You could argue that the coaches are wrong in what they believe. I don't think I could even argue against it all that much other than experience TT has because I do think Peterman has some traits that Tyrod doesn't and also that this type of offense its the good traits to have. I just don't think contract has anything to do with who they put on the field whatsoever. These coaches want to win football games. They aren't going to hinder the team because one guy makes more money. They have shown the exact opposite when it comes to Dareus and Glenn. Good post McD standing behind Taylor, returning the loyalty, is the respectable way of handling the situation and its something the next guy in line and every man in the locker room will come to understand and appreciate playing for our new HC. This Peterman fella still screams play me though ... Edited October 15, 2017 by Figster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Peterman did not look like your typical deer in the headlights rookie during the preseason. (not at all) I was very impressed despite what the stat sheet says. Kid was composed, accurate and decisive IMO. +1 Anti Peterman people will say that he looked terrible under pressure. I say TT hasnt been great under pressure during the regular season. See 6 sacks las Sunday Hes averaging almost 4 sacks per game IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figster Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 +1 Anti Peterman people will say that he looked terrible under pressure. I say TT hasnt been great under pressure during the regular season. See 6 sacks las Sunday Hes averaging almost 4 sacks per game IIRC. Peterman shows good internal clock skills and pocket awareness often times escaping pressure like the kids got eyes in the back of his head. He's got the look... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Peterman shows good internal clock skills and pocket awareness often times escaping pressure like the kids got eyes in the back of his head. He's got the look... He's got the look of what? Why do you think he is a fifth round selection? If the Bills don't use a high pick on a qb in the next draft the franchise should be charged with felonious malfeasance. Enough is enough! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 15, 2017 Share Posted October 15, 2017 Peterman shows good internal clock skills and pocket awareness often times escaping pressure like the kids got eyes in the back of his head. He's got the look... What the fuk was in the water around here in March?? 16 pages of ignore prefs are NOT enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figster Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) He's got the look of what? Why do you think he is a fifth round selection? If the Bills don't use a high pick on a qb in the next draft the franchise should be charged with felonious malfeasance. Enough is enough! It does not surprise me the knock on Peterman for some is being drafted in the 5th. How many times has a 6th round draft choice won a championship over the last decade and a half? Edited October 16, 2017 by Figster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos63 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 How can it get worse with Peterman? he could play like the Cleveland rookie QB's and start throwing pick 6's. Cleveland was done by the end of the first qtr today It does not surprise me the knock on Peterman for some is being drafted in the 5th. How many times has a 6th round draft choice won a championship over the last decade and a half? Has anyone besides Brady done that or anything even close? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Actually, Peterman is BETTER option for this offense. Peterman is the Quicker thrower. Peterman makes faster reads and faster decisions. Peterman can run just as well as Tyrod does, Argument for Tyrod is that he is ball safe. I'd argue Peterman is even better in this respect. Over their collegiate careers, Peterman had better TD-INT ratio than Tyrod: 47-17 vs 44-20. Peterman >>> Tyrod. Blech!!!! Did someone seriously just bring in collegiate stats for a 7th year NFL vet as some point of comparison?!?! Incredible! Relying on preseason stats - good or bad - to assess a player is silly. You look for things like footwork, decisiveness, accuracy, leadership, etc. In preseason, the stats could be good or bad based on many factors. When I watched Peterman, he looked better than Tyrod at all of the things at which Tyrod stinks. Obviously, Tyrod is more mobile/dangerous with his feet. But that's not what we need. Obviously. Peterman has one of the weakest NFL arms I've seen. I like all the things you mentioned and still think he'll get exposed because of that. Brady has proven you can improve arm strength and compensate, but the kid needs time to develop his game. We have a starting QB who looks bad on most weeks. Most, as in, he's had about 4 good games in 30+ starts. We know what he is. Why not go with an unknown in a season that we're clearly going nowhere? WTF?!?! So now Taylor's only had 4 good games and every other one has been bad?! This is just a ridiculous line of thinking. And it's also completely false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 So now Taylor's only had 4 good games and every other one has been bad?! This is just a ridiculous line of thinking. And it's also completely false. I beg to differ. And I challenge you to prove me wrong. I already gave 2/4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 So now Taylor's only had 4 good games and every other one has been bad?! This is just a ridiculous line of thinking. Seattle and Miami last season is 2. Both Losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 @Cover_1_ The #Bills have surrendered 18 sacks in five games. How many are on Taylor? Link: http://www.cover1.net/tyrod-taylor-needs-to-minimize-the-amount-of-sacks-he-takes/ The Buffalo Bills’ record sits at 3-2 and the team can thank its defense and field goal units for that. The offense and its quarterback, by contrast, have been under fire going into the bye week. The quarterback being under heat is nothing new for Taylor. He is used to being critiqued on a weekly basis. This season is a little different, however, because he hasn’t been able to lean on LeSean McCoy and the running game. At times Taylor has looked spectacular in the passing game, mostly coming off of play action and bootlegs. This was expected; it’s why I and many others thought he was a great fit for this scheme, which uses stretch fakes and naked bootlegs to get its QB on the perimeter and in a position to complete easy passes or run, if needed. According to Pro Football Focus, Taylor has run play action 26.9% of the time, which ranks him 4th behind Trevor Siemian, Jacoby Brissett, and Jay Cutler. But what stands out the most is the differential in completion percentage between play action passes and non play action passes. Taylor has completed +13% (#1) or 71.8% of his passes when throwing from play action. Additionally, his yards per attempt is the sixth-highest at 10.1 but the third lowest YPA (5.3), when no play fake is executed. In short, this offense relies on the play action game to generate big plays down the field without an abundance of top tier receiving talent. Taylor has struggled in the drop back game, registering a 58.8 completion percentage and a 74.5 NFL QB rating, which is the 4th-lowest in the NFL. His struggles from the pocket are mainly due to his tendency to hold the ball and, ultimately, not pull the trigger. That tendency has led to him to take 18 sacks in 5 games! That is the 2nd-most in the NFL prior to week six. Now, not all of them are on Taylor. Pro Football Focus (PFF) charged Taylor with five thus far, which is still a lot compared to the first five games last season, in which he only accounted for one. Sure, there are many factors as to why he took fewer last season, but I am not going to focus on them. I want to focus on the context of each of the sacks that I believe were on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Taylor has struggled in the drop back game, registering a 58.8 completion percentage and a 74.5 NFL QB rating, which is the 4th-lowest in the NFL. His struggles from the pocket are mainly due to his tendency to hold the ball and, ultimately, not pull the trigger. Some things will never change. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grb Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) Some things will never change. You can't teach an old dog new tricks. Is it time again? Oh heck; why not : No one can say Watkins and Woods were close to being a premier pair of receivers in the NFL. They were decent - even good - but not anything exceptionally special. But yet in the (15) games where both Watkins and Woods played, Taylor had : 63.6% completions, 8.25 yards per attempt, 27 touchdowns to only 6 interceptions. So you see the problem, right? Poor Mr. Taylor supposedly can't do anything right - not even the most basic quarterbacking skills - but just give him a medium-grade pair of targets, and suddenly it seems he can do pretty damn right after all. Kinda makes you think, huh? Edited October 16, 2017 by grb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Seattle and Miami last season is 2. Both Losses. Wins and Losses is a team stat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Is it time again? Oh heck; why not : No one can say Watkins and Woods were close to being a premier pair of receivers in the NFL. They were decent - even good - but not anything exceptionally special. But yet in the (15) games where both Watkins and Woods played, Taylor had : 63.6% completions, 8.25 yards per attempt, 27 touchdowns to only 6 interceptions. So you see the problem, right? Poor Mr. Taylor supposedly can't do anything right - not even the most basic quarterbacking skills - but just give him a medium-grade pair of targets, and suddenly it seems he can do pretty damn right after all. Kinda makes you think, huh? Let's add another difference. Being in third-and-short more often in 2016 sure trumps being in third-and-long in 2017.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Is it time again? Oh heck; why not : No one can say Watkins and Woods were close to being a premier pair of receivers in the NFL. They were decent - even good - but not anything exceptionally special. But yet in the (15) games where both Watkins and Woods played, Taylor had : 63.6% completions, 8.25 yards per attempt, 27 touchdowns to only 6 interceptions. So you see the problem, right? Poor Mr. Taylor supposedly can't do anything right - not even the most basic quarterbacking skills - but just give him a medium-grade pair of targets, and suddenly it seems he can do pretty damn right after all. Kinda makes you think, huh? Which 15 games were those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 To answer the OP's question: very simple. Peterman could play worse. He could have a lower completion percentage (such as he had during pre-season vs. TT in the regular season), He could throw more picks than TT. He could take more sacks because he isn't as elusive. And so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grb Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Which 15 games were those? As noted, the (15) games where Watkins and Woods played. The remainder of Taylor's starts in his first two years one or both were injured and out. Thus the Brandon Tates, Walter Powells, and Justin Hunters of yore. Now, if someone really wanted to quibble, he might point out half of those Watkin's games were played on a broken foot. But that would be gilding the lily, point-wise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Wins and Losses is a team stat Correct John. But my point was he best wasn't good enough. Nor does it make an excuse for only having 2 great games a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsmovinup Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 We have a starting QB who looks bad on most weeks. Most, as in, he's had about 4 good games in 30+ starts. We know what he is. Why not go with an unknown in a season that we're clearly going nowhere? I know I'll get - "We're (3-2) and in the hunt," from many people. Why? Why are we (3-2)? We are (3-2) because our defense is overperforming/getting lucky with tipped balls. We're (3-2) because of a BS unsportsmanlike call against Von Miller. One thing is certain - we are not (3-2) because of stellar QB play. I'm tired of winning in spite of having a crappy QB. I want to win because we have a good QB. As long as Peterman sits on the sidelines, we won't know if he's good, bad, great or horrible. What would it hurt to take a look? Whole lot of stupid going on here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Is it time again? Oh heck; why not : No one can say Watkins and Woods were close to being a premier pair of receivers in the NFL. They were decent - even good - but not anything exceptionally special. But yet in the (15) games where both Watkins and Woods played, Taylor had : 63.6% completions, 8.25 yards per attempt, 27 touchdowns to only 6 interceptions. So you see the problem, right? Poor Mr. Taylor supposedly can't do anything right - not even the most basic quarterbacking skills - but just give him a medium-grade pair of targets, and suddenly it seems he can do pretty damn right after all. Kinda makes you think, huh? OK Mrs Taylor. Sorry I had to see how that looked. See last post. 2 of 16 is horrible. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 As noted, the (15) games where Watkins and Woods played. The remainder of Taylor's starts in his first two years one or both were injured and out. Thus the Brandon Tates, Walter Powells, and Justin Hunters of yore. Now, if someone really wanted to quibble, he might point out half of those Watkin's games were played on a broken foot. But that would be gilding the lily, point-wise. I meant, against which opponents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billieve420 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 We have a starting QB who looks bad on most weeks. Most, as in, he's had about 4 good games in 30+ starts. We know what he is. Why not go with an unknown in a season that we're clearly going nowhere? I know I'll get - "We're (3-2) and in the hunt," from many people. Why? Why are we (3-2)? We are (3-2) because our defense is overperforming/getting lucky with tipped balls. We're (3-2) because of a BS unsportsmanlike call against Von Miller. One thing is certain - we are not (3-2) because of stellar QB play. I'm tired of winning in spite of having a crappy QB. I want to win because we have a good QB. As long as Peterman sits on the sidelines, we won't know if he's good, bad, great or horrible. What would it hurt to take a look? Because Peterman hasn't earned it. How would it look to the rest of the team that a QB with a winning record has been benched for rookie QB who hasn't proven anything in this league. McDermott could have went that route in the beginning of the year when Tyrod got hurt and Peterman flashed in the preseason. They know he isn't ready. Tyrod has the support of the locker room and no one secretly has been clamoring for Peterman to play. Why? Because they know Tyrod gives them the best chance to win this year. Peterman needs to keep preparing and be ready for his chance. If it happens he needs to play well to keep Tyrod on the bench and from getting his job back. Until then it is Tyrod's team and the team should be trying to play to his strengths. They need to figure out the run game to alleviate pressure off the QB and opening up throwing lanes by moving the pocket more. Bringing back the read option would also be a start. Regardless if anyone agrees or not the offense was built on running the ball and we can't do that effectively so it shouldn't be any surprise to see the offense struggling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 It's amazing that us Bills fans are on 38 pages of a thread started by a Patriot fan troll.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) I think this has more to do with backing up our decision to pay Taylor starter salary then how things are shaping up on the practice field, but we have rumors... Do you think it is more important to Coach McDermott and GM Beane to "backup" thier decision to pay Hotrod, or win football games? Edited October 16, 2017 by reddogblitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos63 Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 To answer the OP's question: very simple. Peterman could play worse. He could have a lower completion percentage (such as he had during pre-season vs. TT in the regular season), He could throw more picks than TT. He could take more sacks because he isn't as elusive. And so on. He could play as poorly as a Cleveland QB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted October 16, 2017 Share Posted October 16, 2017 Correct John. But my point was he best wasn't good enough. Nor does it make an excuse for only having 2 great games a season. He has to have someone to throw it to Shady..... I thought last year's targets were bad...this year our running game is anemic...our replacement for woods forgot how to catch.....his top deep threat is a TE who is hurt....and Mathews broke his finger Gotta take it ALL into consideration......when you are qb not named brady this is gonna be a tough deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts