The Frankish Reich Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 (edited) Looks like Peterman, if healthy, will get 7. Trent Edwards got 9 starts in 2007. And he wasn't very good - 7 TDs, 8 INTs, 56% completions, 5.24 adjusted yards/attempt, 70ish QB rating ... but a 5-4 record. A fair evaluation would have said ... meh. NFL backup QB. But that 5-4 fooled too many people. We saw progress, and the possibility of future development to that next level. We were wrong. Bottom line? 9 games was enough to see the true Trent Edwards. JP Losman got 8 starts in 2005. And he wasn't very good. In fact, he was really, really bad. 8:8 TD:INT. Under 50% completion percentage. 5.0 AY/A, 60ish QB rating. 2-6 record. In retrospect, we saw enough to know that he would never be the guy. He did get better the next year, but it wasn't enough. Rob Johnson got 6 starts in 1998. We forget (for obvious reasons), but ... he was pretty damn good! 102 QB rating. 63% completion percentage. 8 TDs, 3 INTs. 8.74 AY/A. 3-3 record, and in one of he losses he put up 33 points. In retrospect, 6 starts wasn't a long enough look. He had one really good start the next year, then disappeared with injuries, then never looked as good again when he came back. EDIT: how did I forget EJ Manuel? Rookie year: 4-6 as a starter. 11:9 TD:INT. 78 QB rating. 5.84 AY/A. We saw enough to say ... he showed some promise. A work in progress, but I think most people around here were in favor of sticking with him. And then after 4 games the next season, it was over. In retrospect, his problems with reading defenses were obvious from the start, and that seems to be something that's pretty much unfixable. (see Tyrod and Kaepernick). Guys with physical limitations but the ability to read defenses can succeed (Chad Pennington; maybe Case Keenum now? Cousins?) Guys who can't almost never do. An objective/realistic analysis would say that after 10 starts in his rookie year, it was obvious that he'd never be the guy. If the idea is "let's go to Peterman now to get a large enough sample size to know if he's the guy going forward," I have to say that's an awful idea. 9 games generally won't do it. There are some Dak Prescott/Deshaun Watson guys who are so impressive immediately that you just know right away. So I hope that's the case with him, but ... probably not. More likely you'll still have to go QB shopping in the offseason. Edited November 16, 2017 by The Frankish Reich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Peterman would probably have to bring us to the AFCCG while playing VERY well to deter us from drafting a QB next year. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Seven and a half years worth minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senth Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 About 180 and a few championship rings for me. Let's light this candle!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted November 16, 2017 Author Share Posted November 16, 2017 Well, there's hope - a lot of people chimed in on the Jim Kelly thread, and everyone agreed it was obvious right away that he had the "it" factor ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 I think I'll know after 3 downs. Either he has it or we get to run someone else out of town. It's win win really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nedboy7 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 I think Tyrod starts after the Chargers game unless he really lights it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uticaclub Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 According to Tyrod fans, at least 40+ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, nedboy7 said: I think Tyrod starts after the Chargers game unless he really lights it up. They can't turn into the indecisive Cleveland Clowns. Edited November 16, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadingpain Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 26 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Looks like Peterman, if healthy, will get 7. Trent Edwards got 9 starts in 2007. And he wasn't very good - 7 TDs, 8 INTs, 56% completions, 5.24 adjusted yards/attempt, 70ish QB rating ... but a 5-4 record. A fair evaluation would have said ... meh. NFL backup QB. But that 5-4 fooled too many people. We saw progress, and the possibility of future development to that next level. We were wrong. Bottom line? 9 games was enough to see the true Trent Edwards. JP Losman got 8 starts in 2005. And he wasn't very good. In fact, he was really, really bad. 8:8 TD:INT. Under 50% completion percentage. 5.0 AY/A, 60ish QB rating. 2-6 record. In retrospect, we saw enough to know that he would never be the guy. He did get better the next year, but it wasn't enough. Rob Johnson got 6 starts in 1998. We forget (for obvious reasons), but ... he was pretty damn good! 102 QB rating. 63% completion percentage. 8 TDs, 3 INTs. 8.74 AY/A. 3-3 record, and in one of he losses he put up 33 points. In retrospect, 6 starts wasn't a long enough look. He had one really good start the next year, then disappeared with injuries, then never looked as good again when he came back. EDIT: how did I forget EJ Manuel? Rookie year: 4-6 as a starter. 11:9 TD:INT. 78 QB rating. 5.84 AY/A. We saw enough to say ... he showed some promise. A work in progress, but I think most people around here were in favor of sticking with him. And then after 4 games the next season, it was over. In retrospect, his problems with reading defenses were obvious from the start, and that seems to be something that's pretty much unfixable. (see Tyrod and Kaepernick). Guys with physical limitations but the ability to read defenses can succeed (Chad Pennington; maybe Case Keenum now? Cousins?) Guys who can't almost never do. An objective/realistic analysis would say that after 10 starts in his rookie year, it was obvious that he'd never be the guy. If the idea is "let's go to Peterman now to get a large enough sample size to know if he's the guy going forward," I have to say that's an awful idea. 9 games generally won't do it. There are some Dak Prescott/Deshaun Watson guys who are so impressive immediately that you just know right away. So I hope that's the case with him, but ... probably not. More likely you'll still have to go QB shopping in the offseason. You do a nice job of showing how crap QBs and the Buffalo Bills go together like salt and pepper! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted November 16, 2017 Author Share Posted November 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, Fadingpain said: You do a nice job of showing how crap QBs and the Buffalo Bills go together like salt and pepper! LOL Yeah, the more time I spent on that the more depressing it got. The worst part is a lot of us really convinced ourselves that some of these losers would be the new franchise QB. Me? I'll admit to being a Rob Johnson believer. And later on to being a Trent Edwards believer. Losman and Manuel never fooled me. I'm only a half-fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LABILLBACKER Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 42 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Looks like Peterman, if healthy, will get 7. Trent Edwards got 9 starts in 2007. And he wasn't very good - 7 TDs, 8 INTs, 56% completions, 5.24 adjusted yards/attempt, 70ish QB rating ... but a 5-4 record. A fair evaluation would have said ... meh. NFL backup QB. But that 5-4 fooled too many people. We saw progress, and the possibility of future development to that next level. We were wrong. Bottom line? 9 games was enough to see the true Trent Edwards. JP Losman got 8 starts in 2005. And he wasn't very good. In fact, he was really, really bad. 8:8 TD:INT. Under 50% completion percentage. 5.0 AY/A, 60ish QB rating. 2-6 record. In retrospect, we saw enough to know that he would never be the guy. He did get better the next year, but it wasn't enough. Rob Johnson got 6 starts in 1998. We forget (for obvious reasons), but ... he was pretty damn good! 102 QB rating. 63% completion percentage. 8 TDs, 3 INTs. 8.74 AY/A. 3-3 record, and in one of he losses he put up 33 points. In retrospect, 6 starts wasn't a long enough look. He had one really good start the next year, then disappeared with injuries, then never looked as good again when he came back. EDIT: how did I forget EJ Manuel? Rookie year: 4-6 as a starter. 11:9 TD:INT. 78 QB rating. 5.84 AY/A. We saw enough to say ... he showed some promise. A work in progress, but I think most people around here were in favor of sticking with him. And then after 4 games the next season, it was over. In retrospect, his problems with reading defenses were obvious from the start, and that seems to be something that's pretty much unfixable. (see Tyrod and Kaepernick). Guys with physical limitations but the ability to read defenses can succeed (Chad Pennington; maybe Case Keenum now? Cousins?) Guys who can't almost never do. An objective/realistic analysis would say that after 10 starts in his rookie year, it was obvious that he'd never be the guy. If the idea is "let's go to Peterman now to get a large enough sample size to know if he's the guy going forward," I have to say that's an awful idea. 9 games generally won't do it. There are some Dak Prescott/Deshaun Watson guys who are so impressive immediately that you just know right away. So I hope that's the case with him, but ... probably not. More likely you'll still have to go QB shopping in the offseason. 7 games won't be enough and even if he looks good like I think he will, I'd still draft a QB in April. Cover all your bets. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Rest of the year minimum...DCs will better game plan the more tape he has out there... Hes going to have some rough stretches but so did Tyrod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 1 hour ago, GoBills808 said: Seven and a half years worth minimum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: How many starts do you need for a fair evaluation? Depends. None if you're Gibran Hamdan. Don't recall him catching on elsewhere and turning into a franchise guy. More than three seasons including 28 starts if you're Drew Brees, who looked bad enough for that period of time that the team paid a lot of draft capital to trade for Philip Rivers. Poor Rivers. The Bills almost certainly don't expect to come to an absolute conclusion in the rest of the season that will completely eliminate all doubt either way about Peterman. They want to get an idea. And as for your examples, it isn't as simple as you're saying. Something happened to Trent Edwards, whether it was a concussion or more likely just being infected with fear. He regressed. Hadn't been such a checkdown artist early. Look at his YPA. 6.1 and then 7.2, which is really pretty decent. than the regression to an awful 6.4, which was the best he ever did for the rest of his career, excepting his final year when he threw two passes. Same with Losman. Looks bad early. Shows major improvement and looks like he might possibly be good. And then they change the offensive system on him to the precision possession game, a system which totally goes away from his strengths, calculated to forcibly expose his weaknesses. He regressed. Again, his stats show a passer rating of 84.9 in 2006 and then a drop to 76.9% which he also never bested again except his last season with 10 attempts. No way to know if either guy would ever have been good enough under better circumstances, but it's possible. Edited November 16, 2017 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 3 hours ago, nedboy7 said: I think Tyrod starts after the Chargers game unless he really lights it up. No. It's over. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papazoid Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 I need 1 start I think 3 is fair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Romes Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 You usually know right away though Goff was an exception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 7 games and an off-season is what the Bills have. That seems like enough time to me. I was a Manuel believer for one season and then he threw a ball into the medical tent.... I still like Tyrod. He's a good game manager and as long as the rest of the team is fine, he's good enough to win games and make exciting plays. Peterman makes quick decisions and give the WRs opportunities. That's what the Bills offense needs right now. Especially with the addition of Benjamin. If he's 1-1 with the safety, Peterman will throw it, unlike Tyrod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted November 16, 2017 Share Posted November 16, 2017 Tough to know really, but if you have to start making excuses for his play, then it won’t be long. Personally it won’t be so much about the record the team has. DeShaun Watson is 3-3 since he took over. I don’t think anyone would deny that he’s certainly shown something. Is Peterman at Watson’s talent level? Obviously not as they are different players but I need to see something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts