Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • SDS

      Problems logging in?   11/05/2017

      I know a few people are getting logged out too quickly. I don't have the answer to that yet.   However, one change that occurred is that there is no longer a log in name and a separate display name. The upgrade discarded the log in name and now uses the display name. So, to log in:   Username: <display name> Password: <your password>   If you need to contact me to find out what your display name is use: Contact Us  and we can get things sorted out.
Sign in to follow this  
HappyDays

What if the QB switch was about evaluating Dennison, not Peterman?

Recommended Posts

Just a thought I had. The QB switch came out of nowhere, after a press conference where McDermott said Tyrod is the starter and didn’t even give his usual “everything is being evaluated” statement. By all appearances he was ready to roll with Tyrod, no doubt in his mind.

 

The insider reports on here have been that Dennison called for the switch. So what if McDermott is using it to analyze Dennison? He said his offense wasn’t working with Tyrod, so McDermott puts in Peterman at his OC’s request. Today at his press conference he said they haven’t made a decision yet as to who will start next week and says he doesn’t regret the decision. He said that to get better they have to go through growing pains that will hurt.

 

I bet they end up starting Peterman again next week. He has to give him a mulligan for that game because Dennison asked for it so he needs at least one more game to evaluate Dennison’s choice. If he wanted to win first he would obviously start Tyrod, but this is a season where winning comes secondary to evaluating and building for the future. That includes seeing if Dennison’s offense works, which means he has to let Dennison succeed or fail on his own choices. With that in mind I won’t be surprised if Peterman is in fact named the starter.

Edited by HappyDays

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. He started Peterman because it was the right decision at the time. I'm as big of a Tyrod fan as anyone and even I agreed someone else had to start after watching the saints game atrocity. I dont think anyone could have foreseen how much the decision would blow up though, it was a complete and utter disaster in every possible way. The game got out of hand and it snowballed from their.  Nate Peterman hit rock bottom on his first start and thus can only have better days ahead of him...I'm curious to see if McDermott doubles down on his bet because its the only way he can redeem all of this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn’t need to start Peterman to know that Dennison is clueless. You can see that by his clear inability to develop an offense and call plays around what our QB does well. Or his infatuation with Mike Tolbert.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

You didn’t need to start Peterman to know that Dennison is clueless. You can see that by his clear inability to develop an offense and call plays around what our QB does well. Or his infatuation with Mike Tolbert.

 

This. Fire Dennison. Let him ride Tolbert out of town

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TallskiWallski83 said:

No. He started Peterman because it was the right decision at the time. I'm as big of a Tyrod fan as anyone and even I agreed someone else had to start after watching the saints game atrocity. I dont think anyone could have foreseen how much the decision would blow up though, it was a complete and utter disaster in every possible way. The game got out of hand and it snowballed from their.  Nate Peterman hit rock bottom on his first start and thus can only have better days ahead of him...I'm curious to see if McDermott doubles down on his bet because its the only way he can redeem all of this.

 

 I couldn't agree more. I like Tyrod as well. I think he's a great guy, and he can play in this league...as a good back-up QB. He'd be an ideal fit for this. He rarely does anything to lose you the game. He rarely does anything to win you the game. He'll manage the offense and keep your team at .500 while the starter is out.

 

Peterman had a horrendous game. But with our defense playing the way it is, we're not making the playoffs with Tom Brady behind center. It was worth seeing what Peterman could do. We already know what we have in Tyrod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they should've had Kromer as OC and run the same system as the previous 2 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike McCoy is available from Denver. McD's first choice in OC. I wonder if Dennison is coaching for his job the next couple of weeks and if things don't improve he's out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marty McFly said:

 

This. Fire Dennison. Let him ride Tolbert out of town

 

The OL Coach was hired before Dennison - this may be on him not Dennison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TallskiWallski83 said:

No. He started Peterman because it was the right decision at the time. I'm as big of a Tyrod fan as anyone and even I agreed someone else had to start after watching the saints game atrocity. I dont think anyone could have foreseen how much the decision would blow up though, it was a complete and utter disaster in every possible way. The game got out of hand and it snowballed from their.  Nate Peterman hit rock bottom on his first start and thus can only have better days ahead of him...I'm curious to see if McDermott doubles down on his bet because its the only way he can redeem all of this.

Yep. It also seems like he has a bit of an ego.  So by starting TT next week, he would pretty much be admitting his decision to start Peterman was wrong.

 

For me it is a no brainer to go back to TT but let's see what happens

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TallskiWallski83 said:

No. He started Peterman because it was the right decision at the time. I'm as big of a Tyrod fan as anyone and even I agreed someone else had to start after watching the saints game atrocity. I dont think anyone could have foreseen how much the decision would blow up though, it was a complete and utter disaster in every possible way. The game got out of hand and it snowballed from their.  Nate Peterman hit rock bottom on his first start and thus can only have better days ahead of him...I'm curious to see if McDermott doubles down on his bet because its the only way he can redeem all of this.

Well, I disagree that it was the right decision at the time. But really ... nobody could have expected this historically bad performance.  I was expecting something like the CJ Beathard 49ers debut: not downright awful, kind of meh, 75ish QB rating, shows a little something on a throw or two.  And I have to imagine that's what McD thought would probably happen, which wouldn't have been an "upgrade" over Tyrod, but wouldn't have been a big dropoff either, and would give Dennison and the boys a full chance to see whether his offense can work with the rookie and the rest of the offensive talent.  I'm still stunned that it went this wrong.  I'm old enough to remember rookie QBs getting eaten alive like this  back in the days where you'd give a QB a couple years of experience before really judging him.  In the modern NFL, it doesn't happen anymore -offenses are much more structured, progressions clearer, throws are much lower risk. Even mediocre rookies usually start off in that CJ Beathard way. Except for the Bills.

 

EDIT: You know who Peterman was like? Kevin Hogan - a 5th rounder too. Who then went on to have a pretty good game or two, but overall has shown that he is a marginal NFL talent. I predict that Peterman will go the same way.

Edited by The Frankish Reich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so. Winning the upcoming game is ALWAYS the top priority until the team is eliminated from playoff contention. It was a desperate move by a coach out of answers and trusting his mediocre offensive coordinator to manufacture points. It clearly backfired in spectacular fashion. Each week is an evaluation for every assistant on the staff. This one will likely have a big impact on Dennisons future with the team, but you don't make that move at that time to evaluate a coordinator. I think McD was trying to win a game vs a HC that had inside knowledge of Tyrod Taylor and how to defend him. It fell on the schedule right after two poor efforts by Taylor where he was kept in the pocket and couldn't make any throws . Simple as that. On to Kansas City. I'd be stunned if Tyrod isn't the QB, and would call for McDs firing because winning has to be the only thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TallskiWallski83 said:

No. He started Peterman because it was the right decision at the time. I'm as big of a Tyrod fan as anyone and even I agreed someone else had to start after watching the saints game atrocity. I dont think anyone could have foreseen how much the decision would blow up though, it was a complete and utter disaster in every possible way. The game got out of hand and it snowballed from their.  Nate Peterman hit rock bottom on his first start and thus can only have better days ahead of him...I'm curious to see if McDermott doubles down on his bet because its the only way he can redeem all of this.

 

You mention the Saints game, and it just occurred to me....with 5 INTs in the first half and a total disaster that it was, Peterman STILL had more yards in that game than Tyrod did against the Saints in 3 quarters!!! Again, fewer turnovers for sure, but at this point Tyrod is who we believe him to be. 

 

The only thing I'll say to the larger point is this: IF, you're going to have Tyrod be your QB (which I don't agree with) then you have to let him be himself....to run loose, roll out of the pocket, throw on the run and use his athletic ability. If you want a pocket passer, stick with Peterman for better or worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Marty McFly said:

 

This. Fire Dennison. Let him ride Tolbert out of town

I’m willing to blame Dennison as much as anyone. However, it’s difficult to have confidence in McD as well. How many head coaches would sign off on Tolbert being a featured part of the offense?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BigBuff423 said:

 

You mention the Saints game, and it just occurred to me....with 5 INTs in the first half and a total disaster that it was, Peterman STILL had more yards in that game than Tyrod did against the Saints in 3 quarters!!! Again, fewer turnovers for sure, but at this point Tyrod is who we believe him to be. 

 

The only thing I'll say to the larger point is this: IF, you're going to have Tyrod be your QB (which I don't agree with) then you have to let him be himself....to run loose, roll out of the pocket, throw on the run and use his athletic ability. If you want a pocket passer, stick with Peterman for better or worse. 

Ha ha, he was the only QB since the merger with 5 INTS in a half!!! He played, statistically, one of the worst games in NFL history!!! But, pass yards....

 

I do agree that they should just let Tyrod do what he does well. At this point though Peterman hasn’t shown to be anywhere near as capable from the pocket either. The guy completed 6 passes to receivers and 5 to defensive players - in one half. There is no reason for him to see a snap before garbage time or the team is eliminated (unless the goal is to tank).

 

At the same time what are we evaluating? As far as I have ever been concerned, he wasn’t ever going to be a “franchise QB.” He was a 5th round pick for a reason. He was considered one of the most “nfl ready” prospects in the draft. Think about that!! This wasn’t a guy like Cardale that was years from playing. This guy was a high floor, low ceiling type of cerebral QB. He may be able to be a backup but how many snaps does he need for that? You’re drafting a guy either way. Peterman represents the tank and potentially losing your locker room. This was a denagerous decision, by a dangerous HC and proved to be a DISASTER (and that’s being generous).

 

to the original question, Dennison is (and has been) really bad. He won’t be back.

Edited by Kirby Jackson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Ha ha, he was the only QB since the merger with 5 TDS in a half!!! He played, statistically, one of the worst games in NFL history!!! But, pass yards....

 

I do agree that they should just let Tyrod do what he does well. At this point though Peterman hasn’t shown to be anywhere near as capable from the pocket either. The guy completed 6 passes to receivers and 5 to defensive players - in one half. There is no reason for him to see a snap before garbage time or the team is eliminated (unless the goal is to tank).

 

At the same time what are we evaluating? As far as I have ever been concerned, he wasn’t ever going to be a “franchise QB.” He was a 5th round pick for a reason. He was considered one of the most “nfl ready” prospects in the draft. Think about that!! This wasn’t a guy like Cardale that was years from playing. This guy was a high floor, low ceiling type of cerebral QB. He may be able to be a backup but how many snaps does he need for that? You’re drafting a guy either way. Peterman represents the tank and potentially losing your locker room. This was a denagerous decision, by a dangerous HC and proved to be a DISASTER (and that’s being generous).

 

to the original question, Dennison is (and has been) really bad. He won’t be back.

 

I'm NOT defending Peterman's performance.....please read through that. What I AM saying, is that in spite of those 5 INTs, Peterman STILL had more yards in a half than Tyrod did in 3 quarters.....I"m not saying either one of those things is ANY good, they're both horrible!! Just that I think it's funny or quirky that Peterman was terrible, exacerbated by a horrible Offensive line performance, and YET still had more yards than Tyrod in the Saints game. That's all....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TallskiWallski83 said:

No. He started Peterman because it was the right decision at the time. I'm as big of a Tyrod fan as anyone and even I agreed someone else had to start after watching the saints game atrocity. I dont think anyone could have foreseen how much the decision would blow up though, it was a complete and utter disaster in every possible way. The game got out of hand and it snowballed from their.  Nate Peterman hit rock bottom on his first start and thus can only have better days ahead of him...I'm curious to see if McDermott doubles down on his bet because its the only way he can redeem all of this.

Starting Peterman was the wrong decision. Nothing justified starting him. People always talk about how he can't come back from behind. But the reason why the games are even close are because he protects the ball. The teams around Tyrod have been really bad. No QB would make a huge difference with this cast. We need to start building a team for the franchise guy we draft next year. Let Tyrod deal with the lumps and compete in between.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, HappyDays said:

Just a thought I had. The QB switch came out of nowhere, after a press conference where McDermott said Tyrod is the starter and didn’t even give his usual “everything is being evaluated” statement. By all appearances he was ready to roll with Tyrod, no doubt in his mind.

 

The insider reports on here have been that Dennison called for the switch. So what if McDermott is using it to analyze Dennison? He said his offense wasn’t working with Tyrod, so McDermott puts in Peterman at his OC’s request. Today at his press conference he said they haven’t made a decision yet as to who will start next week and says he doesn’t regret the decision. He said that to get better they have to go through growing pains that will hurt.

 

I bet they end up starting Peterman again next week. He has to give him a mulligan for that game because Dennison asked for it so he needs at least one more game to evaluate Dennison’s choice. If he wanted to win first he would obviously start Tyrod, but this is a season where winning comes secondary to evaluating and building for the future. That includes seeing if Dennison’s offense works, which means he has to let Dennison succeed or fail on his own choices. With that in mind I won’t be surprised if Peterman is in fact named the starter.


this is one of the best thoughts I've seen posted here in a while. Good job!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DriveFor1Outta5 said:

I’m willing to blame Dennison as much as anyone. However, it’s difficult to have confidence in McD as well. How many head coaches would sign off on Tolbert being a featured part of the offense?

 

 

Yeah that was a horrible call too. Idk why Dennison didnt call for a better RB2. Cadet played better sunday than tplbert all season. This team is severly lacking in speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×