To everyone who was so adamant that the Bills start Peterman

[Billsfan1972]

12 minutes ago, harv shitz said:

I'm more than happy to weigh in on this: I was at the Saints game, and that was the worst quarterback performance I have ever seen, in over 40 years of watching football! Things started off bad for Peterman, from Benjamin going down on the first play, to a dropped/tipped ball going the other way, to horseshit line play.

 

The coach took a shot, and it didn't work. I give him credit for trying. If you think for a second that Taylor starting would have made any difference, you are dilusional! 

 

Taylor is average at very best. He won't throw over the middle, won't throw on rhythm, won't throw into a tight spot, won't throw a guy open, and checks down way too often, all the while running around Helter Skelter looking for a guy stationary, wide open, to toss to in the flat. 

 

I'm sick of watching horseshit quarterback play, and that is what we get with Taylor. Can't wait for the season to be over, and see him gone!

 

Hopefully we can acquire a FA like Keenum or Cousins, or draft a kid that can come in and start. 

 

As for Peterman, he deserves another chance. I still believe he will end up being a much better NFL quarterback in time than Taylor will.

No the worst was Peterman and 5 ints.  Taylor was 9-18 No rthym and a dropped perfect pass to to Thompson when the game was still close.  

 

Afterwards it was just run run run.

 

Taylor was bad vs. NO.  Peterman was a sad joke vs. LAC.

[Kelly the Dog]

6 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

No the worst was Peterman and 5 ints.  Taylor was 9-18 No rthym and a dropped perfect pass to to Thompson when the game was still close.  

 

Afterwards it was just run run run.

 

Taylor was bad vs. NO.  Peterman was a sad joke vs. LAC.

He was bad. His Int was also a perfect pass. He had that bomb dropped. He had a 30 yard completion called back by a hold that had nothing to do with the play. No reason to bench him. 

[harv shitz]

All that is likely true. However, it was Petermans very first start.

 

Taylor has started nearly 40 games now, and, in my, and many others opinions, has regressed.

 

This is all irrelevant, as this team is going nowhere now. 

 

It was another off season where we stood status quo on the quarterback, when it was more than obvious what we had was no where near good enough, yet, we failed to address it again. 

[billsfan3482]

Peterman had a bad start, BIG DEAL. It's his first start in the nfl.  I've seen enough of Tyrod. Every year and every game i get the falso hope that he might get better. 

Tyrod will be another Fitz,  bounce around teams giving false hope and then end up a back up. 

I/ we all don't know what Peterman will become.  But to say it was a mistake is stupid. 

Watching keenum or other qbs throw the ball to wrs before they turn around, infuriates me knowing tyrod is the starter and somehow he we be different the rest of the season. 

 

Edited November 23, 2017 by billsfan3482

[26CornerBlitz]

29 minutes ago, billsfan3482 said:

Peterman had a bad start, BIG DEAL. It's his first start in the nfl.  I've seen enough of Tyrod. Every year and every game i get the falso hope that he might get better. 

Tyrod will be another Fitz,  bounce around teams giving false hope and then end up a back up. 

I/ we all don't know what Peterman will become.  But to say it was a mistake is stupid. 

Watching keenum or other qbs throw the ball to wrs before they turn around, infuriates me knowing tyrod is the starter and somehow he we be different the rest of the season. 

 

 

I think you have things mixed up. It's much more likely that Peterman will be another Fitz because of his limited physical skills in combination with a gunslinger mentality that causes soul crushing interceptions due to boneheaded decisions.  He's a career backup type. 

[billsfan3482]

1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

I think you have things mixed up. It's much more likely that Peterman will be another Fitz because of his limited physical skills in combination with a gunslinger mentality that causes soul crushing interceptions due to boneheaded decisions.  He's a career backup type. 

U Could be right! Peterman could be a bust. It wouldn't be right to judge of a bad 1st half.  We gave a 4 yr  pro back up a starting job for 2.5 seasons and still  not our future. We've seen his ceiling.  I'm sure if Peterman did great,  tyrod fans would be jumping ship to Peterman real quick. I'm not expecting a 6th rd Brady clone, but more of a surprise dak prescott type.

 

Edited November 23, 2017 by billsfan3482

[Billsfan1972]

5 minutes ago, billsfan3482 said:

U Could be right! Peterman could be a bust. It wouldn't be right to judge of a bad 1st half.  We gave a 4 yr  pro back up a starting job for 2.5 seasons and still  not our future. We've seen his ceiling.  I'm sure if Peterman did great,  tyrod fans would be jumping ship to Peterman real quick. I'm not expecting a 6th rd Brady clone, but more of a surprise dak prescott type.

 

I'll judge him being a 5th round rookie draft choice.  The chances of being serviceable may occur year 2-3 and that is a longshot too.....

[BADOLBILZ]

1 hour ago, Kelly the Dog said:

He was bad. His Int was also a perfect pass. He had that bomb dropped. He had a 30 yard completion called back by a hold that had nothing to do with the play. No reason to bench him. 

 

 

The cooch-de-gras ending of this Taylor saga would be if they get to draft process and after months of contemplation fall in love with Lamar Jackson....trade up for him....... and then have to build an offense around him.   The rationale will be "look what the Eagles and Rams did for Wentz.....gotta' simplify for these 1 read college QB's".

[harv shitz]

It is apparent to me, that most, if not all of us, agree, that we need a new quarterback?

 

Does anyone actually want Taylor back next year?

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

It’s so great to have people trolling like this.  the op is ridiculous 

 

who claimed they wanted Nate to start?   I bet the # is between 3-5. 

Ignore them.

 

People are ready for a change and when McDermott shocked the world we were excited to see what Nate could offer.    

 

To assume we were all adamant Fake News.  

 

 

[JM2009]

2 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

It’s so great to have people trolling like this.  the op is ridiculous 

 

who claimed they wanted Nate to start?   I bet the # is between 3-5. 

Ignore them.

 

People are ready for a change and when McDermott shocked the world we were excited to see what Nate could offer.    

 

To assume we were all adamant Fake News.  

 

 

Backtracking from the COT quoter in every post.

[Big Turk]

It doesn't matter who we start.  Let's be real at this point.  Neither is a good option.  Yes, Tyrod will "look" better, mainly because he is careful to a fault with the ball, but that doesn't say much.  We will struggle to score points most games now that teams have basically figured us out.

 

We will have lots of 3 and outs and will strugle to have any sort of rhythm.  He can be neutalized completely by simply dropping 8 men into coverage and giving him very small windows to throw into which he won't do. He then will end up with 56 passing yards in 4 quarters and will be getting sacked and throwing 3 yard checkdowns.  

 

Peterman wasn't ready, but realistically, McDermott had nothign to lose.  It was an attempt to see if Peterman could move the chains better and failed miserably, but it was a proactive move rather than a reactive one, and for that I commend McDermott.  Sometimes when you make proactive moves they don't work, but is it really any different than leaving Tyrod in there to lose 3 more straight games befroe coming in and then putting Peterman in after the seasons was already lost?  He tried to see if he could salvage it, it didn't work, and that's life.  Not like he took out Joe Montana or something to put in a rookie QB.

Edited November 24, 2017 by matter2003

[Billsfan1972]

13 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

It doesn't matter who we start.  Let's be real at this point.  Neither is a good option.  Yes, Tyrod will "look" better, mainly because he is careful to a fault with the ball, but that doesn't say much.  We will struggle to score points most games now that teams have basically figured us out.

 

We will have lots of 3 and outs and will strugle to have any sort of rhythm.  He can be neutalized completely by simply dropping 8 men into coverage and giving him very small windows to throw into which he won't do. He then will end up with 56 passing yards in 4 quarters and will be getting sacked and throwing 3 yard checkdowns.  

 

Peterman wasn't ready, but realistically, McDermott had nothign to lose.  It was an attempt to see if Peterman could move the chains better and failed miserably, but it was a proactive move rather than a reactive one, and for that I commend McDermott.  Sometimes when you make proactive moves they don't work, but is it really any different than leaving Tyrod in there to lose 3 more straight games befroe coming in and then putting Peterman in after the seasons was already lost?  He tried to see if he could salvage it, it didn't work, and that's life.  Not like he took out Joe Montana or something to put in a rookie QB.

Anyone watching Dak Prescott today?  Putrid the last 3 weeks (2 home), much worse then Tyrod with much better talent.  They have an undrafted rookie that they should start next week......

[Big Turk]

7 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Anyone watching Dak Prescott today?  Putrid the last 3 weeks (2 home), much worse then Tyrod with much better talent.  They have an undrafted rookie that they should start next week......

 

He has looked terrible pretty much anytime he hasn't had Elliott...I believe that include a few times last year as well...I find it very strange considering how marginalized the RB position is these days...

[Kelly the Dog]

Just now, matter2003 said:

 

He has looked terrible pretty much anytime he hasn't had Elliott...I believe that include a few times last year as well...I find it very strange considering how marginalized the RB position is these days...

There was a report that Dak went up to Jerry Jones and threw two dimes on his desk and said "Go get me a couple dozen running backs!"

[HOUSE]

So, one bad game is the end of a career?

 

Really?

 

Your messing with us right??

[Billsfan1972]

12 hours ago, HOUSE said:

So, one bad game is the end of a career?

 

Really?

 

Your messing with us right??

No three weeks and hasn't scored 10 points in any game........  He'd be done in Buffalo..... 5 Ints (all last 2) & 3 fumbles last 3 games.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Billsfan1972

[THEHARDTRUTH]

1 hour ago, harv shitz said:

It is apparent to me, that most, if not all of us, agree, that we need a new quarterback?

 

Does anyone actually want Taylor back next year?

If my only option is the same Nate Peterman that started in San Diego I definitely want Tyrod back. If Peterman improves dramatically and they draft a promising rookie then no. Your question doesnt have a single answer and brings back lovely memories of the "it cant get worse crowd". It can and it did.

[Beans Dream]

I was good with the move.  I still would be good with starting him once we are mathematically out.  Before we potentially spend multiple 1st round pick on a qb, shouldn’t we first see what we have?  Obviously he impressed the staff enough to give him the shot, and Tyrod had struggled the previous two weeks (#’s against the Jets would lead you to believe otherwise but it was not a good game).

[HOUSE]

 

 

• 
• By Gil Brandt
• NFL Media senior analyst
• Published: Dec. 17, 2014 at 02:58 p.m.

Troy Aikman

 

Drafted: No. 1 overall by the Dallas Cowboys in 1989.

First start: Loss (28-0) to the Saints in Week 1 of 1989; 17 of 35 (48.6 percent) for 180 yards, zero touchdowns, two interceptions, two sacks and a passer rating of 40.2.

Aikman -- whom I helped scout and draft -- was thrown right into the mix as a rookie. While he didn't seem lost or overwhelmed at all in that first game, he finished his first season -- which was interrupted by a broken finger that cost him five games -- with nine touchdowns against 18 interceptions while averaging just 5.9 yards per pass. Those are not very good numbers. In fact, it wasn't until his third year in the NFL that he managed to throw more touchdowns (11) than picks (10).

 

 

So what -- aside from playing for a team that finished 1-15 a year after going 3-13 -- held Aikman back in that first start and the rest of Year 1? I think, in general, a lot of rookie quarterbacks are surprised by the complexity of the game at the pro level and the sophistication of their opponents -- how well people disguise coverages and how effectively they exploit weaknesses. Even while he struggled, though, Aikman still threw a big ball and showed excellent accuracy. Norv Turner -- Aikman's offensive coordinator from 1991 to 1993 -- will tell you he's never seen a quarterback as accurate as this guy.

John Elway

 

Drafted: No. 1 overall by the Baltimore Colts in 1983 (traded to Denver Broncos).

First start: Win (14-10) over the Steelers in Week 1 of 1983; 1 of 8 (12.5 percent) for 14 yards, zero touchdowns, one interception, four sacks and a passer rating of 0.

Elway's debut was marred by an elbow injury that forced him out of the game, but his second start (9 of 21 for 106 yards, zero touchdowns and three sacks) wasn't much better. He went on to have a relatively rough rookie season -- 7:14 TD-to-INT ratio and 28 sacks in 11 games -- in which he was benched after three consecutive losses. But he also was part of a team that made the playoffs that year, and he ended up leading the Broncos to three Super Bowl appearances, five playoff berths and six winning seasons over the next nine years. Still, in many ways, the jury was still out on the quarterback, who threw just one more touchdown pass (158) than he did picks (157) from 1983 to 1992. He was kind of like a wild colt, so to speak, in that he would run around and scramble somewhat recklessly and make risky throws across his body.

In 1993, he seemed to turn a corner, and he really took off in 1995, when Mike Shanahan -- who spent two previous stints on Denver's staff during Elway's career -- became the Broncos' head coach. In the final four years of his career, Elway posted a record of 43-16, threw 101 touchdown passes against 49 picks and, of course, won two Super Bowls.

Andrew Luck

 

Drafted: No. 1 overall by the Indianapolis Colts in 2012.

First start: Loss (41-21) to the Bears in Week 1 of 2012; 23 of 45 (51.1 percent) for 309 yards, one touchdown, three interceptions, three sacks and a passer rating of 52.9.

Luck struggled some initially with the speed of the game and maybe tried to force the ball more than he should have. But he seemed to compress the normal timeframe of development for a rookie quarterback, bouncing back from a 1-2 start to lift Indy to an 11-5 record and a playoff berth. The Colts' relatively easy schedule and roster -- which, though it lacked some pieces, was better than what most No. 1 picks have to work with in Year 1 -- helped. But Luck also showed a knack for winning games, compiling seven game-winning drives as a rookie. It couldn't have hurt that his father, Oliver Luck, and his college coach, Jim Harbaugh, were both former NFL quarterbacks.

Peyton Manning

 

Drafted: No. 1 overall by the Indianapolis Colts in 1998.

First start: Loss (24-15) to the Dolphins in Week 1 of 1998; 21 of 37 (56.8 percent) for 302 yards, one touchdown, three interceptions, four sacks and a passer rating of 58.6.

Manning has, of course, become one of the premier quarterbacks in the game, earning 13 Pro Bowl nods and five MVP awards in 14 years with the Colts and two-plus years with the Denver Broncos. And though he set what was then a rookie record with 3,739 yards, he also went 3-13 in his first year with Indy -- and believe me when I tell you that a lot of people were asking whether he was good enough to hack it. In fact, after a less-than-stellar performance in a Week 5 victory over Ryan Leaf's Chargers that season, there were even some folks hollering that Indy should've taken Leaf instead of Manning with the first overall pick in the 1998 NFL Draft.

 

That Manning -- who was very well coached at Tennessee and has such a great understanding of the game -- stumbled out of the gate like that just illustrates how hard it is to start right away as a rookie, especially with the competitive balance being so great in the NFL. Of course, Manning was a tireless worker even then, and, with the help of assistant Tom Moore, grew into the all-time talent we know today.

Alex Smith

 

Drafted: No. 1 overall by the San Francisco 49ers in 2005.

First start: Loss (28-3) to the Colts in Week 5 of 2005; 9 of 23 (39.1 percent) for 74 yards, zero touchdowns, four interceptions, five sacks and a passer rating of 8.5.

Smith is very smart, but it took time for that to translate to the NFL gridiron. He had a horrifically bad rookie year, taking 29 sacks and throwing 11 picks in just nine games (seven starts) while posting a sub-40 passer rating four times. Smith didn't find the end zone until the final game of the season, a 20-17 win over Houston. He seemed reluctant to throw downfield and didn't break out of checkdown mode for years.

It wasn't that Smith, who was neck and neck with Aaron Rodgers in my pre-draft scouting as a prospect, lacked talent. I think a key factor was that he just didn't get as lucky as other guys did in terms of the kind of coaching he received as a rookie. When Jim Harbaugh arrived in 2011, he turned Smith into a good quarterback, and the signal-caller has continued to thrive with the Chiefs under Andy Reid. Just look at his numbers since '11: 38-15-1 record with a TD-to-INT ratio of 71:23.

Fran Tarkenton

 

Drafted: No. 29 overall (third round) by the Minnesota Vikings in 1961.

First start: Loss (21-7) to the Cowboys in Week 2 of 1961; 8 of 24 (33.3 percent) for 117 yards, zero touchdowns, two interceptions, three sacks and a passer rating of 15.5.

Tarkenton's first official start paled in comparison to what he accomplished in his true debut the week before, when he came off the bench to complete 74 percent of his passes for 250 yards and contribute five touchdowns (four in the air and one on the ground) to a 37-13 win over the Bears -- the first ever victory for the Vikings franchise. The rest of his season was a bit rockier, as he went 2-8 in 10 starts while posting a TD-to-INT ratio of 18:17 over 14 games. He had mixed results over the next few years before being traded to the Giants in 1967. This, he recently told me in a conversation on the phone, is when he turned his career around, installing the offense himself and calling the plays in New York as a 27-year-old quarterback; he credits himself as being the person most responsible for his ascension.

After a successful stint in New York, Tarkenton was traded back to the Vikings in 1972 -- and proceeded to make the playoffs from 1973 to 1978, going on a run that included three Super Bowl appearances and saw him win the MVP award in 1975. He was a scrambler who overcame a lack of height -- he was 6 feet if you stretched him out -- and learned how to complement his scrambling ability with his arm.

Steve Young

 

Drafted: No. 1 by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in the 1984 supplemental draft.

First start: Win (19-16, OT) over the Lions in Week 12 of 1985; 16 of 27 (59.3 percent) for 167 yards, zero touchdowns, zero interceptions, six sacks and a passer rating of 77.2; 10 carries for 60 yards.

Young wasn't exactly a rookie when he entered the NFL, having spent two years with the Los Angeles Express of the USFL before going to Tampa Bay. Perhaps Young became used to the lesser competition he saw in his first pro league, because he struggled with the Bucs, compiling a record of 3-16 as a starter while throwing nearly twice as many interceptions (21) as he did touchdown passes (11). Tampa Bay shipped him to San Francisco for a second- and a fourth-round pick in 1987 -- laying the groundwork for his career to take off into the stratosphere.

Even that took time, of course, as Joe Montana was entrenched at quarterback when Young joined the Niners. But ultimately, coach Bill Walsh and his West Coast system shaped Young into the man who won two MVP awards and helped San Francisco score the third-most points in Super Bowl history in a 49-26 win over San Diego.

 

----------->  http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000445192/article/troy-aikman-peyton-manning-among-qbs-with-bad-first-starts

 

Edited November 24, 2017 by HOUSE

[Hapless Bills Fan]

17 minutes ago, HOUSE said:

Troy Aikman

 

Drafted: No. 1 overall by the Dallas Cowboys in 1989.

First start: Loss (28-0) to the Saints in Week 1 of 1989; 17 of 35 (48.6 percent) for 180 yards, zero touchdowns, two interceptions, two sacks and a passer rating of 40.2.

Aikman -- whom I helped scout and draft 

 

Alex Smith

 

Drafted: No. 1 overall by the San Francisco 49ers in 2005.

First start: Loss (28-3) to the Colts in Week 5 of 2005; 9 of 23 (39.1 percent) for 74 yards, zero touchdowns, four interceptions, five sacks and a passer rating of 8.5.

Smith is very smart, but it took time for that to translate to the NFL gridiron. He had a horrifically bad rookie year, taking 29 sacks and throwing 11 picks in just nine games (seven starts) while posting a sub-40 passer rating four times. Smith didn't find the end zone until the final game of the season, a 20-17 win over Houston. He seemed reluctant to throw downfield and didn't break out of checkdown mode for years.

It wasn't that Smith, who was neck and neck with Aaron Rodgers in my pre-draft scouting as a prospect, lacked talent. I think a key factor was that he just didn't get as lucky as other guys did in terms of the kind of coaching he received as a rookie. When Jim Harbaugh arrived in 2011, he turned Smith into a good quarterback, and the signal-caller has continued to thrive with the Chiefs under Andy Reid. Just look at his numbers since '11: 38-15-1 record with a TD-to-INT ratio of 71:23.

Fran Tarkenton

 

Drafted: No. 29 overall (third round) by the Minnesota Vikings in 1961.

First start: Loss (21-7) to the Cowboys in Week 2 of 1961; 8 of 24 (33.3 percent) for 117 yards, zero touchdowns, two interceptions, three sacks and a passer rating of 15.5.

Tarkenton's first official start paled in comparison to what he accomplished in his true debut the week before, when he came off the bench to complete 74 percent of his passes for 250 yards and contribute five touchdowns (four in the air and one on the ground) to a 37-13 win over the Bears -- the first ever victory for the Vikings franchise. The rest of his season was a bit rockier, as he went 2-8 in 10 starts while posting a TD-to-INT ratio of 18:17 over 14 games. He had mixed results over the next few years before being traded to the Giants in 1967. This, he recently told me in a conversation on the phone, is when he turned his career around, installing the offense himself and calling the plays in New York as a 27-year-old quarterback; he credits himself as being the person most 

 

Urrr, shouldn't you have a link and an attribution here?  I really don't think you want us to think you think you'll be selling us on your pre-draft scouting and drafting of Aikman, Aaron Rodgers, and your convos with Tarkenton

 

Links and attributions, do the Right Thing

[HOUSE]

Google is you friend

 

Edited November 24, 2017 by HOUSE

[Kelly the Dog]

1 hour ago, HOUSE said:

Google is you friend

 

If Peterman had any one of those debuts he would be starting this week and wouldn't have been benched at halftime. Even 1-8 with an injury. Those crappy games are the equivalent of Phil Simms in the Superbowl relative to Peterman's implosion. 

[HOUSE]

6 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

If Peterman had any one of those debuts he would be starting this week and wouldn't have been benched at halftime. Even 1-8 with an injury. Those crappy games are the equivalent of Phil Simms in the Superbowl relative to Peterman's implosion. 

 

Peterman didn't play a full game & he wasn't a high draft pick either

[Billsfan1972]

1 hour ago, HOUSE said:

 

Peterman didn't play a full game & he wasn't a high draft pick either

And he wasn't a #1 pick!!!!! 

 

Fifth round rookie!!!!!!

[26CornerBlitz]

1 hour ago, HOUSE said:

 

Peterman didn't play a full game & he wasn't a high draft pick either

 

Thamk God for that.  He might have thrown 10 INTs.

[Billsfan1972]

2 hours ago, HOUSE said:

 

Peterman didn't play a full game & he wasn't a high draft pick either

All the more reason he shouldn't have been started.  However I'd be worried about Dallas right now if I was a Dallas fan.  Dak was a low pick and their backup is a rookie UFA.

[plenzmd1]

11 hours ago, Billsfan1972 said:

No three weeks and hasn't scored 10 points in any game........  He'd be done in Buffalo..... 8 Ints & 3 fumbles last 3 games.

Lets see, Taylor 3 points vs Carolina and the Saints, 16 points vs Cinci with a 23 yd touchdown drive and a 2-yard field goal drive. Awesome 3 game output there!

6 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

All the more reason he shouldn't have been started.  However I'd be worried about Dallas right now if I was a Dallas fan.  Dak was a low pick and their backup is a rookie UFA.

Damn, I am sure the fans in New England and Seatle want their started booted cause of where they were picked. You are Scott are truly special.

[ALF]

Putting a pocket passer behind the Bill's OL is not a good idea. 

 

That int in and out of the hands of DiMarco , and Bosa are too much for a rookie.  

 

Until the OL can pass protect keep Peterman out. 

[Thurman#1]

On 11/20/2017 at 9:37 AM, Billsfan1972 said:

And that anyone saying otherwise knew nothing about how bad Tyrod is and the stupidity of all the experts who don't watch the Bills.......

 

Explain away.......

 

 

 

Pretty much everyone knew - based on what we saw in preseason - that Tyrod was the best on the team at least at that time. Many probably hoped Peterman had improved as much as McDermott implied but it was wildly doubted even by folks like me who hope Tyrod isn't here next year.

 

Few were adamant he start Peterman.

 

Plenty thought it pretty likely before the end of the season. 

 

As for explaining, not much to explain. We should be valuing long-term results over what happens this year in my opinion and that of plenty of others. I figured Tyrod offered the best chance to win games this year. Again, most did. Can't speak for others but I personally didn't care about this year. It was obvious that we weren't going to compete for a championship this year, pretty much from last season. 

 

They tried to middle it by rebuilding but not totally, trying to win in the future and now. And yet each of those two goals hurt the other. Tyrod was the best QB on the roster. We still should've dumped him in my opinion to save cap money and because he isn't ever going to be a franchise guy. Instead we kept him and now we have five wins and may come up with two or three more, which will hurt our chances of getting one of the best QBs in the draft.

 

 

12 hours ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Anyone watching Dak Prescott today?  Putrid the last 3 weeks (2 home), much worse then Tyrod with much better talent.  They have an undrafted rookie that they should start next week......

 

 

One of the many differences being Dak is in his second year, not his seventh. I don't know whether Dak is good enough. I seriously hope not.

 

But I believe that we know about Tyrod. Who by the way had a terrific run game beside him all of last year too.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Nick the Greek]

We will get blown out this Sunday by the Chiefs. And we will all consider starting Peterman again to see if he can improve.

[Billsfan1972]

15 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

Lets see, Taylor 3 points vs Carolina and the Saints, 16 points vs Cinci with a 23 yd touchdown drive and a 2-yard field goal drive. Awesome 3 game output there!

Damn, I am sure the fans in New England and Seatle want their started booted cause of where they were picked. You are Scott are truly special.

Are you that daft?  We are talking 3 games in a row........  8 Ints & 3 fumbles.....  I was pointing out just how bad Dak is, the league probably has caught up to him and he has a much better team & receivers.

 

Obviously Dallas hoped they had the second coming of Tom Brady (and the exact same situation).

 

Dallas I think misses Romo about now.

 

Hope too Dak becomes a serviceable QB.  A star the jury is still out on.

[plenzmd1]

3 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Are you that daft?  We are talking 3 games in a row........  8 Ints & 3 fumbles.....  I was pointing out just how bad Dak is, the league probably has caught up to him and he has a much better team & receivers.

 

Obviously Dallas hoped they had the second coming of Tom Brady (and the exact same situation).

 

Dallas I think misses Romo about now.

 

Hope too Dak becomes a serviceable QB.  A star the jury is still out on.

so let me get this straight, as long as Taylor has an okay game interspersed with bad games no need for him to be replaced?

 

Okee  Dokey!

[Billsfan1972]

6 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

so let me get this straight, as long as Taylor has an okay game interspersed with bad games no need for him to be replaced?

 

Okee  Dokey!

Again Dak is three in a row (2 at home).

 

No when  I don't see play calling or a game plan that looks anything more then pedestrian and predictable, I won't put all the blame on Taylor.  

 

Heck give the Bills OC & credit vs. LAC.  At least they tried to be aggressive and the results with Peterman were as expected.  

 

Again unfair to ask him to process and be at all prepared (not because he only had 3 days before someone uses that tired argument) because he is a 5th round rookie and they just are not ready........

Edited November 24, 2017 by Billsfan1972

[BADOLBILZ]

18 hours ago, Billsfan1972 said:

No three weeks and hasn't scored 10 points in any game........  He'd be done in Buffalo..... 5 Ints (all last 2) & 3 fumbles last 3 games.

 

House and plenzmd1 are typical of fans that don't follow the rest of NFL but think Taylor must be awful.

 

Dak has looked like a system QB fish out of water.......he loses one or two key players and he's totally hamstrung.........but Taylor?  He keeps getting talent subtracted and he's expected to get BETTER by these clowns.

 

Marcus Mariotta is an example of a "franchise QB" that has been awful this year.........3 year starter.......8 TD's and 10 interceptions........very inaccurate throws........but off the top of their heads I'm sure they would have have assumed he was having a great year.

 

Who are all these QB's that are better than Taylor?

 

When you say that they get to stuttering..........then "it doesn't matter cuz Taylor isn't good enough".

 

Point out that Peterman WAS historically bad......worst performance in half a century of NFL QB play..........and plenzmd1 says "well Taylor was historically bad" when in no way was that the case.

 

How about fielding a good defense for a season AND at least temporarily building your offense around his strengths a bit?   Doesn't have to hinder the next QB.   I am sure the next QB would like a guy who can actually get separation and track a deep ball and catch it on a 9 route once in a while.

 

 

[Wayne Arnold]

8 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

House and plenzmd1 are typical of fans that don't follow the rest of NFL but think Taylor must be awful.

 

Dak has looked like a system QB fish out of water.......he loses one or two key players and he's totally hamstrung.........but Taylor?  He keeps getting talent subtracted and he's expected to get BETTER by these clowns.

 

Marcus Mariotta is an example of a "franchise QB" that has been awful this year.........3 year starter.......8 TD's and 10 interceptions........very inaccurate throws........but off the top of their heads I'm sure they would have have assumed he was having a great year.

 

Who are all these QB's that are better than Taylor?

 

When you say that they get to stuttering..........then "it doesn't matter cuz Taylor isn't good enough".

 

Point out that Peterman WAS historically bad......worst performance in half a century of NFL QB play..........and plenzmd1 says "well Taylor was historically bad" when in no way was that the case.

 

How about fielding a good defense for a season AND at least temporarily building your offense around his strengths a bit?   Doesn't have to hinder the next QB.   I am sure the next QB would like a guy who can actually get separation and track a deep ball and catch it on a 9 route once in a while.

 

Just because Peterman's first outing couldn't have gone worse doesn't mean Taylor's performance against the Saints wasn't historically awful. It was the worst performance by a Bills QB at home that I have ever seen. He deserved to be benched. Unfortunately, it didn't work out for Peterman. But he'll get another opportunity starting with the Colts game in a couple weeks.

[Billsfan1972]

3 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

Just because Peterman's first outing couldn't have gone worse doesn't mean Taylor's performance against the Saints wasn't historically awful. It was the worst performance by a Bills QB at home that I have ever seen. He deserved to be benched. Unfortunately, it didn't work out for Peterman. But he'll get another opportunity starting with the Colts game in a couple weeks.

That's an exaggeration.  Was it terrible?  Yes however 9-18 a few drops and a deflected int s no where near that bad.  How about 300 yards rushing by NO.  You're ignoring what really happened.

[Wayne Arnold]

9 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

That's an exaggeration.  Was it terrible?  Yes however 9-18 a few drops and a deflected int s no where near that bad.  How about 300 yards rushing by NO.  You're ignoring what really happened.

 

Not an exaggeration at all. In a game where the defense is getting gashed, Taylor decides checking down on 3rd and long multiple times is the best strategy. He didn't even try. I'd rather see five interceptions in a half any day than 56 yards passing with checkdowns in a blowout. At least when someone throws multiple pick it shows he's trying to make plays.

 

Which performance would you consider worse?

[Teddy KGB]

36 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

House and plenzmd1 are typical of fans that don't follow the rest of NFL but think Taylor must be awful.

 

Dak has looked like a system QB fish out of water.......he loses one or two key players and he's totally hamstrung.........but Taylor?  He keeps getting talent subtracted and he's expected to get BETTER by these clowns.

 

Marcus Mariotta is an example of a "franchise QB" that has been awful this year.........3 year starter.......8 TD's and 10 interceptions........very inaccurate throws........but off the top of their heads I'm sure they would have have assumed he was having a great year.

 

Who are all these QB's that are better than Taylor?

 

When you say that they get to stuttering..........then "it doesn't matter cuz Taylor isn't good enough".

 

Point out that Peterman WAS historically bad......worst performance in half a century of NFL QB play..........and plenzmd1 says "well Taylor was historically bad" when in no way was that the case.

 

How about fielding a good defense for a season AND at least temporarily building your offense around his strengths a bit?   Doesn't have to hinder the next QB.   I am sure the next QB would like a guy who can actually get separation and track a deep ball and catch it on a 9 route once in a while.

 

 

 

Dak has done more in one season than Taylor's done his whole career.     

 

I'd chill on the Dak slander, until Tyrod accomplishes anything beyond 5th pro bowl alternate. 

[Billsfan1972]

9 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

Not an exaggeration at all. In a game where the defense is getting gashed, Taylor decides checking down on 3rd and long multiple times is the best strategy. He didn't even try. I'd rather see five interceptions in a half any day than 56 yards passing with checkdowns in a blowout. At least when someone throws multiple pick it shows he's trying to make plays.

 

Which performance would you consider worse?

He hit Thompson on a long pass on third and 1 that would have gone for 40 yards and he dropped it.  Was only 17-3 at he time.  

 

Another time in the first half Tolbert was stuffed again on third and1.

 

Yep Tyrod's fault.