PolishDave Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Just now, Tiberius said: If he is playing on a short field all game because of turn overs, he has no chance of setting a record Most rushing TD's in a game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 If it was home I'd say Peterman. But away in a loud arrowhead stadium, TT. No need to setup Peterman for yet more failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 (edited) Why did Taylor get benched? A $10mil question 4 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Cryptic? We'll soon see. Spamming the same message over and over Until further notice from the HC Nate is the starter. 2 minutes ago, CodeMonkey said: If it was home I'd say Peterman. But away in a loud arrowhead stadium, TT. No need to setup Peterman for yet more failure. I can accept failure with Nate I can not accept any more failure with Tyrod Edited November 20, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: Cryptic? We'll soon see. Weed is legal in Cali, that's all I can think of for this tweet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 19 minutes ago, jrober38 said: I agree with this. Prior to this season I thought the Bills had one of the worst rosters in the NFL. Somehow we over achieved the first 7 weeks, and since then we've looked like on of the 3-4 worst teams in the league which is what I expected all along. This roster is a mess. Our OL is below average (why on Earth is Ducasse still on the field), we have zero talent at WR without Benjamin, we don't have a competent backup running back, and our defense is a complete dumpster fire. We can't stop the pass or the run, and we have no pass rush whatsoever. Lawson looks mediocre at best, Kyle looks washed up, we have no depth or upcoming talent at DT and our linebackers are all useless. The Bills are one of the worst teams in the league right now. I'm not sure they'll win more than 1 or 2 of their remaining games. We had a small window to maybe get something going, but that was all blown on Rexy. Ownership (including Brandon in here) screwed this team with all of the HC movement and subsequent scheme changes. You ended up with a patchwork roster (that had a degree of talent) but was incompatible with the schemes being employed. The Rex draft has zero players that are able to contribute, the drafts before them had players who couldn't play in the 34/46 of Ryan. The whole thing was a mess. I didn't love Whaley and thought he needed to be shown the door, but he was in an impossible situation.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 (edited) McDermott will be crucified and then some if he starts Peterman again the rest of this year most likely . It will not happen. Then again, I said there was no way other than injury that NP sees the field while the Bills are mathematically alive. Hmmm Edited November 20, 2017 by Boatdrinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: I was trying to refrain from comment, because truth be told, I do NOT have the heart for a stats research project right now, and I don't like to blow off my opinion without facts to back it up. But I have to throw this out Not just you, Maj Bobby, but to everyone who has this opinion "might as well": winning and losing, are both to some degree habits. When your team gets behind, do you rev it up or give it up? Do you put your body on the line with a whole heart, or do you phone it in and save yourself? I believe that outcomes would show that "bad for Bradford" "suck for Luck" and similar tank campaigns, are rarely successful in building a championship team, because while the team may succeed in getting that cherished 1st round pick, they succeed in building a losing culture in the rest of the team at the same time. The teams that look on-track to be strong this year, are not necessarily the teams that sucked and drafted high last year or the year before. They're the teams that were "meh" and brought in the right coach/GM, identified the pieces they needed, and went for them. Philly would be a good example - 7-9 in 2015, changed coach, changed GM, went all-in after a QB, 7-9 last year but showed flashes, looking good so far this year. LA Rams might be another - at 4-12 they weren't bad enough to draft high, but traded up for Goff, and also put in what may be the right pieces at HC, OC and DC I'm trying to think of an example of a team that totally sucked, drafted a QB #1, and totes turned it around in 1-2 years after tanking. Anyone? The Colts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zow2 Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Peterman set historical records for QB ineptitude (in only one half!)....even if you throw out that first INT. He surpassed John Skelton and Rex Grossman to name a few. They cannot start him next week at KC and Peterman may never start again after that game! I like the guy, hope he rebounds but he may not see the field again till next preseason (unless Tyrod gets injured). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, jmc12290 said: The Colts. They won one game, had the first pick and the draft happened to have what was regarded as the best QB prospect in over 20 years. Perfect storm. That's not happening again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 5 minutes ago, jmc12290 said: The Colts. I grant you, The Colts. They kind of seem like a special case, though, since they were 10-6 the year prior to "suck for Luck", coming off a 9 year run of "playoffs every year", and the QB seemed like their missing piece. 1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said: They won one game, had the first pick and the draft happened to have what was regarded as the best QB prospect in over 20 years. Perfect storm. That's not happening again Two I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 (edited) I said repeatedly Peterman was not ready and that throwing a rookie who isn't ready behind a bad OL would be a disaster and terrible way to develop the kid. Now I said that all preseason and thought the best path for him was to let him sit at least 10 weeks before they consider taking a look at him if Tyrod had not won this regime over. So I was ok in the switch as I assumed the staff had seen enough that the kid was ready to play. I also didn't expect a great game, always thought that was going to be unrealistic. But, Peterman should have been pulled after the 3rd INT when he clearly proved he wasn't ready and while the game was still winnable. We entered the game in the 6th playoff spot, you have a team full of veterans who want to win, want to break the playoff streak, and need to believe this team wants to still win. No one would have blamed McD for making a switch there once the chance he took on NP was not working out. I don't blame McD for taking a chance, ultimately it was a win win scenario for next year. But somehow he found a way to take a win win and make it a big lose. It was win win from the point that if NP wasn't getting us wins and was struggling, our draft cost to get a QB would be less through having a worse record by being able to stay put and take our QB or cost less to trade up. And if NP played well, even in losses, we could spend even less on a QB possibly next year and focus on the many other holes. But, instead...somehow McD turned this into a total lose situation. The one thing that he couldn't do is stubbornly flush the postseason down the tubes. If NP was struggling but game stayed winnable, you get him letting NP play through it as the commitment to the change. But after the 3rd INT in the first quarter, it was clear this was a disaster. McD owed it to the fans and the players to still try and win this game, and it was clear NP was no where near ready. He should have just handed the ball back to TT and at least showed the guys in that locker room that they still want to win and try and make the playoffs. Sticking with NP until the game was no longer winnable was about as dumb as it gets. Edited November 20, 2017 by Alphadawg7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 19 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: McDermott will be crucified and then some if he starts Peterman again the rest of this year most likely . It will not happen. Then again, I said there was no way other than injury that NP sees the field while the Bills are mathematically alive. Hmmm Do you think McDermott cares what the fans think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 McDermott still evaluating who will be the starting QB for the KC game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPP Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said: McDermott still evaluating who will be the starting QB for the KC game. McDermott is such a tool....evaluating what?? How much film does he need to watch?? I dont get it.....he was standing there watching that free fall.....sometimes i actually think maybe we would of been better off with the Rex Big Top show instead..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolishDave Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said: McDermott still evaluating who will be the starting QB for the KC game. Didn't the coach also admit recently that they were still trying to get a feel for this team? I think they found their answers. Yikes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lfod Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 (edited) You wouldn't have pulled Nate Peterman out after halftime if your plan was to keep him as your starter in my view. If you wanted him as your starter then you stay the course and ride those ups and downs. In his own words he said a lot of rookies are playing and you ride those ups and downs. With Nate it wasn't done. You pulled him scared. I agree with others. If you put Nate in you stay through it. If you do pull him then you don't do it after it has gotten so bad there is no hope Tyrod can turn it around. Edited November 20, 2017 by Lfod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 I think the answer is obvious... Tyrod must start. The Chiefs are very beatable. They look like they are already in post-season form, so they are only good for 12-15 points (all FGs) Let's beat them by a stupid KC score of 16-12 or something. 6-5 and alive with NE coming in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBuff423 Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said: They were. I am sorry if you can't see what others do see. Who was the QB we faced under center for the JETS? A career backup that outplayed Taylor.? Taylor isn't the answer. Why else do you think he got benched? Hey Bro, we're on the same page regarding starting Peterman in the Chargers game...I was all for it, and still am despite the outcome because the Bills need/ed to know what Peterman brings to the table prior to the 2018 Off-season. No argument there....I suppose the only disagreement is that mathematically speaking, they still aren't out of the playoffs and at the time of the Jets game, they were 5-2, firmly in the first Wild Card spot and could have taken the AFC East Division lead with a win over the Jets since the Pats didn't have the same number of division wins as the Bills would have...so AT THE TIME yes, playoffs were still a consideration....after the abysmal game they played, their true character and ultimate reality was revealed thereby ending any real possibility of the playoffs in terms of realistic expectations. Not sure why we're in disagreement here since we agree about the reality, and factually they were in fact the lead Wild Card team going into that game and actually stayed as much until their loss to San Diego yesterday. Not sure what the difficulty is....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Yikes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stank_Nasty Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 4 minutes ago, BigBuff423 said: Hey Bro, we're on the same page regarding starting Peterman in the Chargers game...I was all for it, and still am despite the outcome because the Bills need/ed to know what Peterman brings to the table prior to the 2018 Off-season. No argument there....I suppose the only disagreement is that mathematically speaking, they still aren't out of the playoffs and at the time of the Jets game, they were 5-2, firmly in the first Wild Card spot and could have taken the AFC East Division lead with a win over the Jets since the Pats didn't have the same number of division wins as the Bills would have...so AT THE TIME yes, playoffs were still a consideration....after the abysmal game they played, their true character and ultimate reality was revealed thereby ending any real possibility of the playoffs in terms of realistic expectations. Not sure why we're in disagreement here since we agree about the reality, and factually they were in fact the lead Wild Card team going into that game and actually stayed as much until their loss to San Diego yesterday. Not sure what the difficulty is....? its the poster you are responding to. that's what the difficulty is. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts