To everyone who was so adamant that the Bills start Peterman

[dulles]

On 11/19/2017 at 7:47 PM, paulbills said:

It's hard to not support the decision to bench your starter after he went 9/18 for 56 yards in a must win game at home vs the Saints, the decision backfired, what it shows is that the Bills do not have a QB for the future. 

I think this is where the discussion should end.  It won't, but it is a fair and accurate description.

[T-Bomb]

Peterman will likely be starting in 2 weeks...

 

That's really all the explaining needed.

[26CornerBlitz]

4 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

Peterman will likely be starting in 2 weeks...

 

That's really all the explaining needed.

 

What happens in two weeks has nothing to do with the disaster of a decision to name him starter in week 11. 

Edited November 26, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz

[T-Bomb]

6 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

What happens in two weeks has nothing to do with the disaster of a decision to name him starter in week 11. 

 

Sure it does, it means Tryod isn't good enough either way. I believe we all know that already, McBeane sure as hell knows it, its just the whinnage of the media and NFL players on twitter makes it much harder these days for a coach to make and stick with decisions.  Especially when you have black players insinuating that it was a racially motivated decision...

 

To me it was simply the Bills trying moving on from Tryod.  If Peterman had only thrown two picks, he'd be starting today.

Edited November 26, 2017 by T-Bomb

[ALF]

6 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

Peterman will likely be starting in 2 weeks...

 

That's really all the explaining needed.

 

If they are out of the hunt and if the OL can pass protect by then. Taylor is durable if you let him scramble and run. 

 

A pocket passer behind the present OL scheme does not have a chance 

[T-Bomb]

The bottom line here is Tryod could have nipped this in the bud with excellent play, problem is he's too mentally slow to play QB, it's that simple.  He just can't process the game fast enough, sorry.  The vast majority of the QB's that try to play the position in the NFL fail in the same way, so he's not alone.

Edited November 26, 2017 by T-Bomb

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, T-Bomb said:

 

Sure it does, it means Tryod isn't good enough either way. I believe we all know that already, McBeane sure as hell knows it, its just the whinnage of the media and NFL players on twitter makes it much harder these days for a coach to make and stick with decisions.  Especially when you have black players insinuating that it was a racially motivated decision...

 

You can claim that all day long, but it doesn't because the move was presented as giving the team the best chance to win and that was clearly nonsense.   It was a stupid decision and any ancillary issues being discussed outside of OBD should not have entered into McDermott's thinking or he's the wrong man for the job.  Another terrible take by you.  

[Scott7975]

15 hours ago, Southtown Tommy said:

it.was.his.first.start.

Jeff Tuel had a better first start than Peterman. 

[T-Bomb]

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

You can claim that all day long, but it doesn't because the move was presented as giving the team the best chance to win and that was clearly nonsense.   It was a stupid decision and any ancillary issues being discussed outside of OBD should not have entered into McDermott's thinking or he's the wrong man for the job.  Another terrible take by you.  

 

McDermott is done with Taylor.  Whine about it all you want really.  He showed his cards. 

 

I'm sorry you were drinking so much Kool Aid and feel burned, but you should have known better IMO...

[26CornerBlitz]

8 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

 

McDermott is done with Taylor.  Whine about it all you want really.  He showed his cards. 

 

I'm sorry you were drinking so much Kool Aid and feel burned, but you should have known better IMO...

 

You don't know what you're talking about as ususal.  I've been saying all along that the Bills need to draft a QB in '18.  Last week has more to to with McDermott thinking Peterman was ready than anything with Taylor who is who he is.  It's the Petermaniacs who were shocked into the reality of him being a marginal developmental QB prospect who simply is not ready for NFL starting duty.  

Edited November 26, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

You can claim that all day long, but it doesn't because the move was presented as giving the team the best chance to win and that was clearly nonsense.   It was a stupid decision and any ancillary issues being discussed outside of OBD should not have entered into McDermott's thinking or he's the wrong man for the job.  Another terrible take by you.  

T-Bomb's point that this regime doesn't believe that TT is the answer at the qb position is the central point. That's not surprising because Whaley came to the same conclusion. Does resorting to a rookie qb give the team a better chance to win?  It was a risk that this staff was willing to take because it got tired of the seven year veteran qb not doing what it wanted him to do. If they didn't believe he is capable of running an offense that they wanted to run then going to the rookie was not as crazy of an idea that many people are making it out to be. One positive coming out of the first half benching is that when he played in the second half he played more like the staff wanted him to play. 

 

I believe the Bills are going to use a high draft pick on a qb in this draft. If they do it won't be because they have much confidence that either of their qbs are franchise qbs. If I were a betting man I would bet that Peterman is more likely to be on the roster next year than the more mobile qb who is now taking the snaps. 

[26CornerBlitz]

6 minutes ago, JohnC said:

T-Bomb's point that this regime doesn't believe that TT is the answer at the qb position is the central point. That's not surprising because Whaley came to the same conclusion. Does resorting to a rookie qb give the team a better chance to win?  It was a risk that this staff was willing to take because it got tired of the seven year veteran qb not doing what it wanted him to do. If they didn't believe he is capable of running an offense that they wanted to run then going to the rookie was not as crazy of an idea that many people are making it out to be. One positive coming out of the first half benching is that when he played in the second half he played more like the staff wanted him to play. 

 

I believe the Bills are going to use a high draft pick on a qb in this draft. If they do it won't be because they have much confidence that either of their qbs are franchise qbs. If I were a betting man I would bet that Peterman is more likely to be on the roster next year than the more mobile qb who is now taking the snaps. 

 

Not a new revelation. That does not turn the McDermott decision into a good one because it wasn't.

[JohnC]

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Not a new revelation. That does not turn the McDermott decision into a good one because it wasn't.

So he made a bad decision. Big deal! It wasn't a catastrophic decision because it will have little lasting impact. As it turned out the decision that you considered ill-conceived at least had the positive effect of forcing the reluctant qb to be more aggressive. When a player, at any position, is not playing the way the coaches want him to play then at the minimum it is an understandable decision. You don't have to agree with it. But it was far from being a zany decision.  

 

I'm not designating Taylor as the source of all the team's deficiencies. He's playing with a lot of deficient players on his unit. But when a coach gambles to jolt a flaccid offense, even if it is a long-shot effort, I'm not going to make it out  to be an outlandish act. It didn't work out for the rookie but it did result in the veteran to play better. The irony is that the HC is criticized for being too conservative and in the same breath is being criticized for being too radical. As far as I'm concerned I'm not bothered that he started the rookie.  On the other hand I would have been harshly critical if he wouldn't have started the veteran in the second half and in the following game.  

[26CornerBlitz]

8 hours ago, JohnC said:

So he made a bad decision. Big deal! It wasn't a catastrophic decision because it will have little lasting impact. As it turned out the decision that you considered ill-conceived at least had the positive effect of forcing the reluctant qb to be more aggressive. When a player, at any position, is not playing the way the coaches want him to play then at the minimum it is an understandable decision. You don't have to agree with it. But it was far from being a zany decision.  

 

I'm not designating Taylor as the source of all the team's deficiencies. He's playing with a lot of deficient players on his unit. But when a coach gambles to jolt a flaccid offense, even if it is a long-shot effort, I'm not going to make it out  to be an outlandish act. It didn't work out for the rookie but it did result in the veteran to play better. The irony is that the HC is criticized for being too conservative and in the same breath is being criticized for being too radical. As far as I'm concerned I'm not bothered that he started the rookie.  On the other hand I would have been harshly critical if he wouldn't have started the veteran in the second half and in the following game.  

 

Zany, ill-conceived, miscalculated, or bone headed.  Take your pick, but I can't agree with your attempt to spin this into some effort to turn Taylor into a different player.  He read the situation wrong with his belief that Peterman was "ready".  He simply was not and it wasn't a shock.  It was an egregious decision by the supposedly methodical McDermott in a critical game. 

Edited November 27, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz

[Bangarang]

52 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

Jeff Tuel had a better first start than Peterman. 

 

And?

[Scott7975]

5 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

And?

And nobody was up in arms wanting him to start again

[Bangarang]

3 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

And nobody was up in arms wanting him to start again

 

So what? 

[T-Bomb]

1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

You don't know what you're talking about as ususal.  I've been saying all along that the Bills need to draft a QB in '18.  Last week has more to to with McDermott thinking Peterman was ready than anything with Taylor who is who he is.  It's the Petermaniacs who were shocked into the reality of him being a marginal developmental QB prospect who simply is not ready for NFL starting duty.  

 

Last week was about McBeane being done with Taylor.  Sorry you're too blind to see that.

 

They want intel, intel on Peterman before the draft.

 

The whole "win now" thing is for the benefit of the fans, not the team. Wise up!

Edited November 26, 2017 by T-Bomb

[26CornerBlitz]

2 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

 

Last week was about McBeane being done with Taylor.  Sorry you're too blind to see that.

 

They want intel, intel on Peterman before the draft.

 

The whole "win now" thing is for the benefit of the fans, not the team. Wise up!

 

Wrong again. They don't need it. They'll draft a QB irrespective of a marginal NFL prospect. 

[Mat68]

Taylors performance was the worst possible conservative football.  The game kept falling further and further away and his demenor stayed the same uninterested way.  Obviously, Peterman was terrible in worst possible aggresive way.  Taylors performance was worth sitting, thinking Peterman was better was the mistake. 

 

Now its game day.  Kc went from class of the AFC to a middling team.  For Buffalo to win Taylor needs to play great.  Like the Miami and Seattle game last year.  Those were both loses so who knows.

Edited November 26, 2017 by Mat68

[bigduke6]

if McD had known ahead of time that Peterman would throw up all over himself in his first start,  then started him anyways,  that would have been a bad decision.

 

McD couldnt have known that,   Peterman has been a solid player all through his college career,  beating future NFL talent.    Tyrod has been bad.   the team was actually winning despite Tyrods play.

 

did it blow up in McDs face?  sure,   but he had seen enough of his veteran starter...... i cant fault McD for trying.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Zany, ill-conceived, miscalculated, or bone headed.  Take your pick, but I can't agree with your attempt to spin this into some effort to turn Taylor into a different player.  He read the situation wrong with his belief that Peterman was "ready".  He simply was not and it wasn't a shock.  It was an egregious decision my the supposedly methodical McDermott in a critical game. 

In hindsight it was a bad decision. So what? If Taylor would have started do you think the outcome would have been different? Of course it wouldn't. Our defense was atrocious and our offense is limited with or without Taylor taking the snaps. This was a game in which Rivers was seen laughing throughout the whole game. Bosa came off the field laughing how no one even blocked him. The Chargers chuckled their way through this game in both the first and second half of the game. Your fixation on the decision is way out of proportion to the outcome. 

 

You accuse me of attempting to spin this situation. That's not what I'm doing. You keep magnifying the issue as if McDermott's qb decision was an act that should be considered disqualifying. That's utter nonsense. The Bills are not now a playoff team and will not be for the near future. So the HC is attempting out of the box decisions that have you in a perpetual scolding mood. For whatever odd reason you are making a decision that didn't work out be not only a threat to collapsing an already faltering franchise but a threat to western society. 

[Southtown Tommy]

5 hours ago, Scott7975 said:

Jeff Tuel had a better first start than Peterman. 

and what does that prove? hmmmm nothing

[Bing Bong]

21 hours ago, Southtown Tommy said:

it.was.his.first.start.

it was the worst first start in history.

[THEHARDTRUTH]

We lose by 28 if Peterman starts today. "Ok Nate. One more time. Would you like that meal supersized today. Ok. No problem. Your total comes to 6.25."

[26CornerBlitz]

LMAO

 

[Jackington]

6 hours ago, bigduke6 said:

if McD had known ahead of time that Peterman would throw up all over himself in his first start,  then started him anyways,  that would have been a bad decision.

 

McD couldnt have known that,   Peterman has been a solid player all through his college career,  beating future NFL talent.    Tyrod has been bad.   the team was actually winning despite Tyrods play.

 

did it blow up in McDs face?  sure,   but he had seen enough of his veteran starter...... i cant fault McD for trying.

I can. Chargers said they saw it all in preseason and gameplanned from that. Peterman can't handle pressure. And he threw 5 INTs in a half. 

 

Imagine if the Bills miss out on the playoffs by 1 game. McD literally will have caused the drought to continue. 

[bigduke6]

the illusion of playoffs,  magical.    at any point this season,  has this offense,  been good enough,  to win a playoff game?

 

most important position on the field is medicore at best.     we win despite Taylor.     if the defense doesnt play like a super bowl calibre defense,   we dont win at all.

 

not the recipe for a playoff team.

 

of course,  this isnt Taylors fault,  its the coaching,  lack of talent around him,  offensive line,  Obama,  etc etc etc.

Edited November 26, 2017 by bigduke6

[Bing Bong]

7 hours ago, Bangarang said:

 

And?

Peterman is bad

[Bing Bong]

6 hours ago, JohnC said:

In hindsight it was a bad decision. So what? If Taylor would have started do you think the outcome would have been different? Of course it wouldn't. Our defense was atrocious and our offense is limited with or without Taylor taking the snaps. This was a game in which Rivers was seen laughing throughout the whole game. Bosa came off the field laughing how no one even blocked him. The Chargers chuckled their way through this game in both the first and second half of the game. Your fixation on the decision is way out of proportion to the outcome. 

 

You accuse me of attempting to spin this situation. That's not what I'm doing. You keep magnifying the issue as if McDermott's qb decision was an act that should be considered disqualifying. That's utter nonsense. The Bills are not now a playoff team and will not be for the near future. So the HC is attempting out of the box decisions that have you in a perpetual scolding mood. For whatever odd reason you are making a decision that didn't work out be not only a threat to collapsing an already faltering franchise but a threat to western society. 

Lol Tyrod has more control of the locker room than McDermott. You think the defense wasn't ready to mail it in when they saw Peterman trotting out second quarter? Maybe we lose that game anyway, but it wouldn't have been because the team knew they had a near impossible task with 5 pick Peterman.

 

Everybody knew Tyrod gives us a better chance to win, and we were/are in the playoff hunt. That's the narrative. McDermott's "out of the box decision" was a monumental screw up.

[Bangarang]

40 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Peterman is bad

 

And? What does that have to do with Jeff Tuel?

[Bing Bong]

8 hours ago, JohnC said:

So he made a bad decision. Big deal! It wasn't a catastrophic decision because it will have little lasting impact. As it turned out the decision that you considered ill-conceived at least had the positive effect of forcing the reluctant qb to be more aggressive. When a player, at any position, is not playing the way the coaches want him to play then at the minimum it is an understandable decision. You don't have to agree with it. But it was far from being a zany decision.  

 

I'm not designating Taylor as the source of all the team's deficiencies. He's playing with a lot of deficient players on his unit. But when a coach gambles to jolt a flaccid offense, even if it is a long-shot effort, I'm not going to make it out  to be an outlandish act. It didn't work out for the rookie but it did result in the veteran to play better. The irony is that the HC is criticized for being too conservative and in the same breath is being criticized for being too radical. As far as I'm concerned I'm not bothered that he started the rookie.  On the other hand I would have been harshly critical if he wouldn't have started the veteran in the second half and in the following game.  

It was a horrible decision. And how is that not a big deal? If he's criticized for being too radical in one game, conservative in the next, maybe he doesn't have decision making skills.

[JohnC]

34 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Lol Tyrod has more control of the locker room than McDermott. You think the defense wasn't ready to mail it in when they saw Peterman trotting out second quarter? Maybe we lose that game anyway, but it wouldn't have been because the team knew they had a near impossible task with 5 pick Peterman.

 

Everybody knew Tyrod gives us a better chance to win, and we were/are in the playoff hunt. That's the narrative. McDermott's "out of the box decision" was a monumental screw up.

That so called monumental screw up had no bearing on the game because the Bills were going to lose to the better team regardless who played. 

[billsfan3482]

1 hour ago, Jackington said:

I can. Chargers said they saw it all in preseason and gameplanned from that. Peterman can't handle pressure. And he threw 5 INTs in a half. 

 

Imagine if the Bills miss out on the playoffs by 1 game. McD literally will have caused the drought to continue. 

 

So Petermans  1 bad game would cause the drought to continue, but Tyrods amazing 56 yd passing game wouldnt? What about his other trash passing games where the defense and run game had to bail him out?? Theres no  guarantee Tyrod beats the Chargers anyway.

 

Sean was asked , what did going back to tyrod do for the offense?  His response was "overall Today,  Today  we played good team offense, we ran the ball well  and tyrod used his feet, theres were some good things and it wasnt just 1 guy"

Him making a point of saying Today twice and not  directly speaking about tyrod, sounds he doesnt care anymore either. 

 

Im not judging peterman off a half a game performance like other people. But whether he becomes our starter or gets cut I dont care, im just done with Tyrod.

 

Edited November 27, 2017 by billsfan3482

[Bing Bong]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

That so called monumental screw up had no bearing on the game because the Bills were going to lose to the better team regardless who played. 

True, 5 interceptions probably has no bearing on the game. And football games are always foregone conclusions anyway hahaha. If you're a linebacker watching your idiot coach trot out the same 4 pick quarterback in the second quarter instead of the team captain.. you tell me how your morale would be.

[Bing Bong]

22 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

And? What does that have to do with Jeff Tuel?

he's worse than Jeff Tuel?

[Southtown Tommy]

3 hours ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

it was the worst first start in history.

You are correct. so am I.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

My IQ dropped reading these last 2 pages.   

[Bing Bong]

I love how everybody's justification for starting Peterman is "we would have lost to the Chargers anyway".

 

The Chargers are world beaters huh?

 

Don't watch football anymore if you geniuses know the outcomes.

[reddogblitz]

On 11/26/2017 at 6:49 AM, Scott7975 said:

Jeff Tuel had a better first start than Peterman. 

 

As did Fitz, EJ, Trent, KyleOrton, Shane Matthews, JP, Thaddeus Lewis, Drew Bledsoe, Kelly Holcombe, Flutie, and Rob Johnson.

On 11/26/2017 at 2:39 PM, Jackington said:

I can. Chargers said they saw it all in preseason and game planned from that. Peterman can't handle pressure. And he threw 5 INTs in a half. 

 

It was painfully obvious to anyone paying attention in pre season as opposed to Nasty Nate ball washing as so many were.