Nate Peterman's performance against the Chargers

[PrimeTime101]

Peterman lets go 5-11 with 50 INT's and get a real QB in draft..

[Hapless Bills Fan]

58 minutes ago, Woodman19 said:

1989 Cowboys           1992 Cowboys

 

Your formatting is fine, but the question it's addressing changed.  I thought the question was of gutting 53 players (or most of them) in a season, not 4 years.

29 minutes ago, Woodman19 said:

More than one, that's for sure lol. I'm

 

Four.  2 in his 2nd game, 3 in his 4th.

He did have 4 - 4 INT games in his career, one of them the '91 SB v Wash, sadly

[Woodman19]

4 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Your formatting is fine, but the question it's addressing changed.  I thought the question was of gutting 53 players (or most of them) in a season, not 4 years.

You think they can't purge the team of character problems (giving up) in one offseason with 10 draft picks + free agency?

[Scott7975]

1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

how ironic.... NoPlayoffs 

 

It's been 2 1/2 seasons with TT....  if you felt that strongly why not a name change?  

 

The 8th (give or take 1) game of 15 and 16 all but ended the Bills chances at the WC when Tentative Taylor forgot how to pass the ball. 

funny how that excuse works for TT and not a rookie.  

Funny how the excuse works for a rookie and not TT. 

[Woodman19]

2 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

Funny how the excuse works for a rookie and not TT. 

Expectations should be different for a veteran.

[Scott7975]

4 minutes ago, Woodman19 said:

Expectations should be different for a veteran.

So a vet should make a terrible line dissapear and make grocery bagger receivers look like Antonio Brown just because he is a vet?  

 

I expected Nate to be a little worse. I don't expect 5 Ints in like 10 passes worse. Rookie or not that is terrible. 

[Jobot]

McD pretended like Peterman was Tom Brady out there.  Most ignorant play calling imaginable for a rookie qb. 

 

How many picks occurred on 3rd and long.... Peterman never had a prayer to succeed.  A punt is not always a bad thing McD!

 

This game was a microcosm of how impatient and clueless this staff has become.

[Boatdrinks]

3 minutes ago, Jobot said:

McD pretended like Peterman was Tom Brady out there.  Most ignorant play calling imaginable for a rookie qb. 

 

How many picks occurred on 3rd and long.... Peterman never had a prayer to succeed.  A punt is not always a bad thing McD!

 

This game was a microcosm of how impatient and clueless this staff has become.

 Well to be fair Dennsion is calling the plays. He's shown himself to be pretty terrible at it all season, and yesterday was no exception. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Boatdrinks

[Hapless Bills Fan]

30 minutes ago, Woodman19 said:

You think they can't purge the team of character problems (giving up) in one offseason with 10 draft picks + free agency?

 

Depends on two things:

1) how many of those "character problem" guys are there?

2) how interested are FA gonna be in joining your team?

 

People are never (or seldom**) "character problems" in a vacuum. 

I've been a model employee, a real workaholic overachiever and top performer.  I've been an underperformer and a bit of a problem child.

I was the same person, both times; my attitude changed because the culture and environment around me, the expectations and the way I was treated, changed.

Same thing with the people I supervised.  Some of them had been low performers, I was able to help them turn it around.  Some of them who'd been considered stars, had struggles with me because organizational (and my) expectations differed and they weren't willing or able to meet them.

I don't see why professional football players would be different - character problems with talent can become great performers if you reach them and motivate them correctly.  OTOH, if the team feels it's being deliberately set up to fail through trading top talent for nothing or not starting the best players, it will create character problems. 

 

Getting back to the original topic  I commented that you can't purge 53 guys off a roster, you said essentially "sure you can" and held up the Cowboys (over 4 years) as an example.  How many of those 53 guys did they replace in one season?

**edited: on reflection, there are the JaMarcus Russells, Ryan Leafs, and Johnny Manziels of the world who are probably character problems anywhere, or at least have it so deeply engrained before you get there that it can't be changed.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Hapless Bills Fan

[wakingfane]

Even the DiMarco miss was 50% Peterman... Not to name name's but... Tyrod throws those passes low. Aaaaand... true to form, often throws those passes soooo low, being careful, that the RB has no way to make a play.  Yay.

[YoloinOhio]

Maybe already mentioned but I now remember a similar QB performance in the nfl. Geno vs the Bills in 2014 at MetLife. He had 4 picks in the 1st qtr I believe.

Edited November 20, 2017 by YoloinOhio

[section122]

1 hour ago, Boatdrinks said:

 

 If you can't see the difference between starting a rookie in a hornets nest stadium full of Rabid Chiefs fans and a rinky dink soccer stadium in LA with no partisan crowd then I'm not sure what to tell you. Forget the records, the Bills were 5-2 this season. The NP switch had little chance of working, but Tyrod wasn't winning that game the way he had been playing of late. Certainly not vs Lynn, who knows his every weakness and how to defend him. I was surprised by the decision , as it was not conservative but it really was the only spot in could be done. Why make a switch to spark the offense if the team is already out of the playoffs? To shield oneself from media criticism?  It's rather like closing the proverbial barn door. I don't think Tyrod is a very good QB, and had no confidence he would beat the LAC. Many on this board would disagree. If they are so sure about Tyrod winning yesterday , why can't  he not win a road game vs a struggling Chiefs team that lost 4 of 5 and got beat by a 1 win Giants team? The Chargers have found ways to lose close games this year, including a close one to New England. The Bills are not capable of playing a close game with New England, so records aren't always a great indicator. The Chargers are not terrible. 

 

I do see the difference between the 2.  I just think the move in general was a dumb one.  I think the coach threw in the towel on a very winnable game starting his precious 5th round rookie.  Bringing in a 5th round rookie was supposed to spark the offense?  Come on thats ridiculous.  Peterman being brought in was a desperation move to show that Dennison's scheme can be successful and that the offense sucking has been all Tyrod's fault.  Before yesterday many people bought that.  Now that Peterman played worse than Tyrod ever even came close to playing it has changed to how bad the rest of the team is.  The team has been bad.  The Saints game wasn't solely on Tyrod even though he was also bad.  We saw yesterday that Tyrod is light years ahead of Peterman.  Do you really think it looks that much different in practice to spark that move?

 

Nobody is so sure Tyrod would have won yesterday.  It isn't about that.  Tyrod would have played better than Peterman and that I CAN guarantee.  You opine about the Chargers finding ways to lose close games but oh they aren't that bad.  Peterman made it so the game never had a chance to be close.  Chargers aren't terrible that I will agree with but who do you think is a tougher game?  3-6 Chargers in a half filled with Bills fans stadium that holds less than half of New Era or a team that blew out New England playing in one of the toughest places to play in the league.

 

Back to my original post to you it's the mental gymnastics that are driving me crazy.  Even before the game there was a what if Peterman plays bad thread filled with excuses BEFORE he even took a snap.  Now that it is likely Tyrod will be back in we should beat the Chiefs .  It's still the same crappy team this week as it was last week.  The only way they win is if the defense finally shows up.  What do people always say to bash Tyrod?  He won't win you the game but he won't lose it for you either?  Peterman lost that game for the Bills yesterday.  It is okay to think Tyrod sucks AND to think that Peterman sucks.  I don't mind that at all.  Tyrod not being good enough for anyone is fine with me.  Anyone pretending Peterman is or should be excused in any way for yesterday isn't.  He was historically bad and deserves to head back to the bench for good.

[Boatdrinks]

11 minutes ago, section122 said:

 

I do see the difference between the 2.  I just think the move in general was a dumb one.  I think the coach threw in the towel on a very winnable game starting his precious 5th round rookie.  Bringing in a 5th round rookie was supposed to spark the offense?  Come on thats ridiculous.  Peterman being brought in was a desperation move to show that Dennison's scheme can be successful and that the offense sucking has been all Tyrod's fault.  Before yesterday many people bought that.  Now that Peterman played worse than Tyrod ever even came close to playing it has changed to how bad the rest of the team is.  The team has been bad.  The Saints game wasn't solely on Tyrod even though he was also bad.  We saw yesterday that Tyrod is light years ahead of Peterman.  Do you really think it looks that much different in practice to spark that move?

 

Nobody is so sure Tyrod would have won yesterday.  It isn't about that.  Tyrod would have played better than Peterman and that I CAN guarantee.  You opine about the Chargers finding ways to lose close games but oh they aren't that bad.  Peterman made it so the game never had a chance to be close.  Chargers aren't terrible that I will agree with but who do you think is a tougher game?  3-6 Chargers in a half filled with Bills fans stadium that holds less than half of New Era or a team that blew out New England playing in one of the toughest places to play in the league.

 

Back to my original post to you it's the mental gymnastics that are driving me crazy.  Even before the game there was a what if Peterman plays bad thread filled with excuses BEFORE he even took a snap.  Now that it is likely Tyrod will be back in we should beat the Chiefs .  It's still the same crappy team this week as it was last week.  The only way they win is if the defense finally shows up.  What do people always say to bash Tyrod?  He won't win you the game but he won't lose it for you either?  Peterman lost that game for the Bills yesterday.  It is okay to think Tyrod sucks AND to think that Peterman sucks.  I don't mind that at all.  Tyrod not being good enough for anyone is fine with me.  Anyone pretending Peterman is or should be excused in any way for yesterday isn't.  He was historically bad and deserves to head back to the bench for good.

Absolutely it can look that different in practice. Rob Johnson might have been the best practice QB of all time. Everything changed once the red jersey came off. There are zero excuses for Nate Petrmans play, none. He was epically bad. It's still crazy to think McD made a switch to prove a point. The game wasn't very winnable with Taylor at QB. Less ugly perhaps, but the guy is a reluctant passer and Lynn designed game plans to minimize his limitations. He knew exactly how to defend Taylor. This was a desperation move to try to win a football game after watching two game films of open WRs and a QB who won't throw them the football. It's a tough spot to be in and there are few answers right now. The loss to LAC may have been a bit less ugly on the stat sheet if Taylor had played, but it would have been a loss just the same. The spark could come from Tyrod having a fire lit under him , not just from NP ( which obviously didn't happen). It was desperation not some great conspiracy to show off Dennisons vaunted system . Winning football games is all the league is about. Taylor might not lose the game and throw multiple picks, but he can't bring your offense back from two or three scores because the defense is bad and he won't throw the ball. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Boatdrinks

[rodneykm]

A couple of the picks weren't totally Nathans fault. I was thinking 3 INT's coming into the game sounded about right. He's just not ready and that is kind of scary to think about if something were to happen to Tyrod. It might not be a terrible idea for the Bills to sign someone with some experience -- now. 

[Kelly the Dog]

9 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Absolutely it can look that different in practice. Rob Johnson might have been the best practice QB of all time. Everything changed once the red jersey came off. There are zero excuses for Nate Petrmans play, none. He was epically bad. It's still crazy to think McD made a switch to prove a point. The game wasn't very winnable with Taylor at QB. Less ugly perhaps, but the guy is a reluctant passer and Lynn designed game plans to minimize his limitations. He knew exactly how to defend Taylor. This was a desperation move to try to win a football game after watching two game films of open WRs and a QB who won't throw them the football. It's a tough spot to be in and there are few answers right now. The loss to LAC may have been a bit less ugly on the stat sheet if Taylor had played, but it would have been a loss just the same. The spark could come from Tyrod having a fire lit under him , not just from NP ( which obviously didn't happen). It was desperation not some great conspiracy to show off Dennisons vaunted system . Winning football games is all the league is about. 

Practice and preseason are played at approximately 3/4 speed. A lot of guys look good or great in practice but cannot replicate in real games. RJ is a good example. He couldn't handle the pressure or rush a huge portion of the time, which was non-existent in practice and preseason.

 

The best example to me was Trent Edwards. He also was a practice and preseason all-star. And don't talk to me about the 4-0 or 5-1 start before he got clobbered. We won a few games but he wasn't that good and didn't show the talents he needed to show to be good regardless of raw stats.

 

When Chan was made coach originally, he saw how good Trent looked in practice and preseason, and thought, as good and great coaches do, that I have a lot to work with here, and I can coach him up. He started Trent for two or three games and immediately saw that TE couldn't handle the rush. All he could do, like Peterman, was read the defense pre-snap, make a quick decision and with his quick release throw an accurate short completion.

 

Chan didn't decide to bench him for Fitzy the backup, Chan just cut Trent. You never see that. He probably just didn't want to be tempted again. The same thing happened to McDermott with Peterman.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Kelly the Dog

[Luka]

1 hour ago, Scott7975 said:

So a vet should make a terrible line dissapear and make grocery bagger receivers look like Antonio Brown just because he is a vet?  

 

I expected Nate to be a little worse. I don't expect 5 Ints in like 10 passes worse. Rookie or not that is terrible. 

 

Jordan Matthews = more production than Sammy Watkins. Kelvin Benjamin = about equal production to Sammy Watkins. It's the grocery bagger QBs that can't get it done.

[Woodman19]

1 minute ago, Luka said:

 

Jordan Matthews = more production than Sammy Watkins. Kelvin Benjamin = about equal production to Sammy Watkins. It's the grocery bagger QBs that can't get it done.

So you're saying Peterman gets a pass since he didn't get either?

[Scott7975]

6 minutes ago, Luka said:

 

Jordan Matthews = more production than Sammy Watkins. Kelvin Benjamin = about equal production to Sammy Watkins. It's the grocery bagger QBs that can't get it done.

And Tyrod had those receivers for how many games?

[Luka]

1 minute ago, Woodman19 said:

So you're saying Peterman gets a pass since he didn't get either?

 

Pointing out that there is plenty of talent in the receiving corps and I hadn't even drilled down to Clay and O'Leary. Doesn't matter which QB is out there, they both are inept in their own, obvious ways. Time to go all in this year and get a guy. I'm sick of blaming the rest of the team when it's one position we can't get production out of. We've turned over this roster multiple times and one constant remains. We have below average QB play, and the best you'll get is 9-7 or worse.

[ndirish1978]

19 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Practice and preseason are played at approximately 3/4 speed. A lot of guys look good or great in practice but cannot replicate in real games. RJ is a good example. He couldn't handle the pressure or rush a huge portion of the time, which was non-existent in practice and preseason.

 

The best example to me was Trent Edwards. He also was a practice and preseason all-star. And don't talk to me about the 4-0 or 5-1 start before he got clobbered. We won a few games but he wasn't that good and didn't show the talents he needed to show to be good regardless of raw stats.

 

When Chan was made coach originally, he saw how good Trent looked in practice and preseason, and thought, as good and great coaches do, that I have a lot to work with here, and I can coach him up. He started Trent for two or three games and immediately saw that TE couldn't handle the rush. All he could do, like Peterman, was read the defense pre-snap, make a quick decision and with his quick release throw an accurate short completion.

 

Chan didn't decide to bench him for Fitzy the backup, Chan just cut Trent. You never see that. He probably just didn't want to be tempted again. The same thing happened to McDermott with Peterman.

 

Pretty much this. He saw Tyrod wasn't going to get better, thought the kid looked good in practice and took a shot. Peterman isn't an NFL QB and before anyone tells me I'm jumping the gun - he had the worst performance of any QB ever in his first half; the only QB that was even close to being as bad was Ryan Lindley, who had 4 INTs, there is no precedent for starting this poorly and then becoming great and Peterman isn't breaking any trends.