How Many Starts Do You Need for a Fair Evaluation?

[The Frankish Reich]

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

[BringBackOrton]

Peterman would probably have to bring us to the AFCCG while playing VERY well to deter us from drafting a QB next year. IMO.

[GoBills808]

Seven and a half years worth minimum.

 

[Senth]

About 180 and a few championship rings for me.

 

Let's light this candle!!!

[The Frankish Reich]

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 ...

[Dan]

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.

[nedboy7]

I think Tyrod starts after the Chargers game unless he really lights it up. 

[uticaclub]

According to Tyrod fans, at least 40+

[26CornerBlitz]

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

[Fadingpain]

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  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

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.

[LABILLBACKER]

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.

[Big Turk]

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.

[KD in CA]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

Seven and a half years worth minimum.

 

 

[Thurman#1]

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

[GunnerBill]

3 hours ago, nedboy7 said:

I think Tyrod starts after the Chargers game unless he really lights it up. 

 

No. It's over. Sorry.

[papazoid]

I need 1 start

 

I think 3 is fair

[Charles Romes]

You usually know right away though Goff was an exception. 

[LeGOATski]

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.

[Wayne Cubed]

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. 

[8-8 Forever?]

all of 'em.  and it looks like he will be getting them.   if Nate is great, then yay, we shall see

 

trust the process.   2017 is all about talent e v a l., if wins came, then great. 

 

   McBeanes said it would take them "through October to know what they had";  they looked at TT for that time and decided he isn't the answer.    and Dareus, and maybe Miller, etc.  

Edited November 16, 2017 by 8-8 Forever?

[Buffalo Boy]

6 hours ago, uticaclub said:

According to Tyrod fans, at least 40+

Where is the Tyrod breakdown?

A bunch of us saw him for who he was before LAST season even started.

In terms of Peterman, I think we will see by the end of this year and some of us will have a fairly decent idea.

I want the kid to do well but if he is only competent then we need to take a QB early next year.

[ProcessTheTrust]

He steps in inheriting a team currently in the 6th spot. If he holds the spot or gets us in even higher by beating LAC, IND, MIA 2x, and stealing one vs KC or NE, the kid may prove to be worth riding out and only needing to draft his back up. Short of that, draft 1st rd and let them compete for it.

And with the teams left on our schedule, there will no doubt be opportunities to show he can carry us when our D struggles and the run game isn't working. Can he keep our O on the field and keep us in it and if it's down to the last possession, can he pull it out? That's the test and 7 games should be plenty of time to find that out.

[BigBuff423]

Honestly, I don't know that you can answer that question with clarity since each QB takes their own time to truly know....like you said, in retrospect, those other guys we should have known quickly. However, as with Wentz, he started the whole year and threw 16 TDs to 14 INTs - and on this board, that gets you benched but look at him this year. I think, JMO, you know when you see the guy throw. It's not always about stats, it's about how he commands the Offense, how he throws the ball, where the throws the ball, how the receivers are able to catch the ball and what can they do after the catch, if he can recognize Defenses appropriately and audible, and how accurate he is because in the case of Wentz, his completion % was 62.4 last year, a solid number. 

 

Now, don't mistake my use of Wentz as an example to say that I think Peterman is or could be Wentz, I'm just saying I don't know that stats tell the whole story, which is very much the case for Tyrod. His stats aren't terrible, but when you watch him play, at least for me, I know that he's a truly gifted athlete and good guy, but he can't QB in the NFL. His skill-set doesn't match the demand for what the NFL requires NFL QBs to do....

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

if he were to start the remainder of the season, then maybe you could give him a fair evaluation.

[BigBuff423]

4 hours ago, papazoid said:

I need 1 start

 

I think 3 is fair

 

And keep in mind, the next 3 are: Chargers (west coast travel), Chiefs, and Pats.

 

Now, a good to great QB should still fair well in all three games to some degree, but I don't know that's fair to say we should be 3-0 at the end of that either. He should be evaluated on how he does individually as to whether they stick with him or not.....if he can't move the ball, if the Offense looks as impotent or worse (somehow) as it did with TT and / or he is missing really open receivers and holds the ball too long, then he should sit...but I also think we should expect a couple INTs because he probably will take that chance and push the ball into tight windows and down field.

[K-9]

Old rule of thumb was 1,000 snaps before you decided what kind of QB you really had. I think that may be a luxury in this day and age. Which is regrettable because so many QBs enter the league after seeing the same defenses in college game after game. The more rapid success of young QBs lately gives me hope, though. In the right circumstance, with the right coaching and supporting cast, a young QB can make a mark much sooner than before. 

[cd1]

Don't be ridiculous. Jim Kelly did not start out as JIM KELLY. 

 

Then there are those like RGIII who seemed the second coming of GOD then fizzle into nowhere.

 

Some like Trent Edwards start out great then something happens and the gig is over.

 

You ride the magic carpet as long as it flies.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 hours 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.

 

(....)

 

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.

 

 

I completely agree with the last paragraph.  We need to go QB shopping in the off season, even if we see promise in Peterman.

See, here's the thing.  It's easy to go back and look at a QB body of work over 6 games, or even a single season, and with hindsight project his eventual development onto it.

But there are a number of very good or even great NFL QB where, if judged on their first season, or their first 6-10 games, would be out on the trash, to the loss of their current teams.  Then there are some QB who showed promise in their first season then regressed (as the league got film on them) and took a couple years to develop fully.

If Peterman shows promise, great.  Draft a QB, the best QB we can reach, and let them compete...if Peterman continues to develop, great.  If not, "next man up".

 

[Buffalo Boy]

1 hour ago, BigBuff423 said:

Honestly, I don't know that you can answer that question with clarity since each QB takes their own time to truly know....like you said, in retrospect, those other guys we should have known quickly. However, as with Wentz, he started the whole year and threw 16 TDs to 14 INTs - and on this board, that gets you benched but look at him this year. I think, JMO, you know when you see the guy throw. It's not always about stats, it's about how he commands the Offense, how he throws the ball, where the throws the ball, how the receivers are able to catch the ball and what can they do after the catch, if he can recognize Defenses appropriately and audible, and how accurate he is because in the case of Wentz, his completion % was 62.4 last year, a solid number. 

 

Now, don't mistake my use of Wentz as an example to say that I think Peterman is or could be Wentz, I'm just saying I don't know that stats tell the whole story, which is very much the case for Tyrod. His stats aren't terrible, but when you watch him play, at least for me, I know that he's a truly gifted athlete and good guy, but he can't QB in the NFL. His skill-set doesn't match the demand for what the NFL requires NFL QBs to do....

Goff might be an even better example

Many had already written him off before this season started.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

10 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Seven and a half years worth minimum.

 

LOL

 

I try to give people 3 years minimum to pass judgement.  

1 hour ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

if he were to start the remainder of the season, then maybe you could give him a fair evaluation.

that is a good starting point.  

 

See how he looks and reacts to game situations that will aid the team in and decisions for '18

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

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.

 

 

I think you bring up a very interesting point - sometimes the team surrounding them, or the system they're playing in, may impact a young QB's development in a negative way.  A young QB looks like a typical young QB - some good, some bad, some promise, flashes on occasion - then somehow he hits a wall and is never the same.  The wall may be offensive system, or it may be taking some hits that make him gun-shy, or maybe his brain just gets scrambled or he gets the "Yips". (I think EJ got the yips but perhaps that's me.)

Some recover (Steve Young is the poster child for this, Alex Smith and perhaps Kirk Cousins for more recent examples.)

Some don't ("Trentative" Edwards is the poster child for this).

 

I don't think Taylor is an example of either, I think he's a QB that can do some good things in a system and behind a line tailored (heh heh) to his strengths - as you say, like Losman, placed in a system that goes away from his strengths and forcibly exploses his weaknesses.

San Diego with Rivers and Brees is an exact example, though, of the sort of capital a QB has to expend upon QB if they seriously want to field a contender.  Anyone who thinks we should look at 7 games of Peterman and decide not to draft a QB, is signing on for mo' of the same 'ol from the Bills.

[DasNootz]

1 hour ago, cd1 said:

Don't be ridiculous. Jim Kelly did not start out as JIM KELLY. 

 

Then there are those like RGIII who seemed the second coming of GOD then fizzle into nowhere.

 

Some like Trent Edwards start out great then something happens and the gig is over.

 

You ride the magic carpet as long as it flies.

Kelly was 23-13 with nearly 10,000 yards in 2 seasons in the USFL

 

Kelly's first game in the NFL:
292 yards and 3 TDs.

 

If Peterman does that vs. the Bolts, I'll be a believer.
 

[cd1]

25 minutes ago, DasNootz said:

Kelly was 23-13 with nearly 10,000 yards in 2 seasons in the USFL

 

Kelly's first game in the NFL:
292 yards and 3 TDs.

 

If Peterman does that vs. the Bolts, I'll be a believer.
 

 

Fair enough.

 

My point was to start right out of the gate with a predetermined time frame for success is RIDICULOUS.

[row_33]

For a tinker-toy bush-league rag-tag panic option runner, i HATE him right from the first snap, sometimes the team realizes this just isn't football and acts on it (Flutie and Tyrod)

 

For a real QB who will drop back and throw, he gets a lot of time if needed.

[Mat68]

In the preseason I saw Peterman do something I have never seen a QB do in a Bills uniform.  He successfully threw a back shoulder fade.  Hopefully, Peterman is the answer.  Going to him in season when Buffalo is still in the playoff seems to tell me the coaches have a lot of faith in him.  For me it makes the remainder of the season a lot more interesting.  The last 2 weeks were very hard to watch.  

[row_33]

He's going to get massacred out there the next 3 weeks.  I'm fine with that as he builds his chops.

 

[Big Turk]

6 minutes ago, row_33 said:

He's going to get massacred out there the next 3 weeks.  I'm fine with that as he builds his chops.

 

Peterman was touted as being the most ready to start QB out of college and has not looked out of place anytime he has played.  There is a chance that happens, but I really doubt it.  SD is OK on D, KC gives up tons of yards and relies on turnovers and red zone D like the Bills do(did), and NE is nobody's idea of a great D...

Edited November 16, 2017 by matter2003

[Mat68]

If Peterman plays well and we make the playoffs, that takes away the absolute need to reach and uses extra picks to make a move for a Qb.  Now I believe if there is a QB that they love I am fine with them making a move regardless of Peterman's play.  Outside of Peterman fueling an improbable Brady type Superbowl run, you still draft a Qb with one of the top 4 picks.  The better he plays determines how many or which pick you use on the position.  They have the capital to move up to 2 or 3 if they want.  Peterman determines if Buffalo has to.

[Jauronimo]

11 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Seven and a half years worth minimum.

 

They're basically still rookies until year 10.