Jump to content

Peterman was historically bad on Sunday


LA Grant

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Jokeman said:

One could also wonder had Benjamin not gotten hurt how different would have things looked? As Nate was moving the team prior to the tipped INT.

If our entire offense's success is predicated on a single player that wasn't even on our team until week 9 and didn't play until week 10 then we have even bigger issues than everyone thinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Then the Bills would have crushed the Chargers........ Sheez  stop the insanity!!!!!!!

All I'm saying it changed the how things were planned for prior to Sunday. We likely would have still lost because of the poor defensive play but maybe not as badly. 

6 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

If our entire offense's success is predicated on a single player that wasn't even on our team until week 9 and didn't play until week 10 then we have even bigger issues than everyone thinks.

The passing offense might have since we've seen how bad it's been without Matthews in previous weeks and one could argue even with Tyrod as the starter the offense is dependent on Shady McCoy and let's not forget Clay is coming back from injury so Nate didn't have as much time to develop timing with him too. Look I'm not saying Nate didn't play horrible because he did yet at the same time I agreed with the move away from Taylor as to me he'll never be good enough to be anything more than a glorified game manager. If I'm McBeane I want Nate in there more to see if he can turn things around from a horrible first game or not so I know what to do this offseason. As right now it probably mean drafting Rosen or Rudolph yet I can't dismiss one player after one game. 

Edited by The Jokeman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Jokeman said:

So he can only improve right? I know we're all upset at how bad he performed but what do we have to lose now if we start him again? My only concern is about McDermott "losing the locker room". Yet I'm not sure if our current core leaders will be along much longer as I can't see Kyle staying around longer and Lorax looks like age finally caught up with him leaving us a chance to pursue more McDermott guys like Star Lotulelei who's set to be an UFA this offseason. 

 

When the "leadership council" talks to McDermott about "the head coach losing the locker room," he should show clips of Taylor checking down on 3rd and long while down multiple touchdowns, the OLine letting defensive linemen run by unscathed, and the defense missing tackle after tackle before saying "This is where the locker room lost the head coach. Now get the !@#$ out of my office."

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennison is the reason that Taylor was benched. Not McDermott. Dennison wanted Taylor benched.

And, as stated before; Peterman has looked like **** in his practices going back all the way to camp.

 

This was a mind bottling move and a huge indictment on the poor leadership of McDermott

 

 

I believe he lost the team Sunday 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Jokeman said:

One could argue even with Tyrod as the starter the offense is dependent on Shady McCoy and let's not forget Clay is coming back from injury so Nate didn't have as much time to develop timing with him too. Look I'm not saying Nate didn't play horrible because he did yet at the same time I agreed with the move away from Taylor and if I'm McBeane I want Nate in there more to see if he can turn things around from a horrible first game or not so I know what to do this offseason. As right now it probably mean drafting Rosen or Rudolph yet I can't dismiss one player after one game. 

Nate had Shady, so I don't understand your point here (other than the gameplan should have featured him more). Clay almost always has rest days because of his knee, if Nate didn't have chemistry with him then the decision to start him is even worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Boyst62 said:

Dennison is the reason that Taylor was benched. Not McDermott. Dennison wanted Taylor benched.

And, as stated before; Peterman has looked like **** in his practices going back all the way to camp.

 

This was a mind bottling move and a huge indictment on the poor leadership of McDermott

 

 

I believe he lost the team Sunday 

Really? So it's Dennison's fault that Tyrod hasn't lead the team to a TD in the first quarter this season? Or that he has only thrown for one 300 yard passing game in his career as a starter? Tyrod is what he is which is an above average backup and great athlete see a slightly better version of Michael Vick but neither one of them were great NFL QBs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Dennison is the reason that Taylor was benched. Not McDermott. Dennison wanted Taylor benched.

And, as stated before; Peterman has looked like **** in his practices going back all the way to camp.

 

This was a mind bottling move and a huge indictment on the poor leadership of McDermott

 

I believe he lost the team Sunday 

 

Why would trusting his assistant coach be an indictment on the poor leadership of McDermott?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Nate had Shady, so I don't understand your point here (other than the gameplan should have featured him more). Clay almost always has rest days because of his knee, if Nate didn't have chemistry with him then the decision to start him is even worse.

My point is that Tyrod isn't good enough to be a starter and why he was benched to begin with. As we've seen Tyrod at his best against Seattle and Miami last season but not so ironically we lost both of those games. The guy just isn't good enough and that's why McDermott tried something different in Peterman. It's not an endorsement of Peterman but a lack of endorsement for Tyrod and maybe once Tyrod fans can see that we can start to have a real QB discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think that we were not in deep s#it after the Jets and the Saints game?  The QB switch did not matter as the Defense could not stop anything and in both games the QB went 3 and out so many times the defense was on its ##s for most of the game.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

When the "leadership council" talks to McDermott about "the head coach losing the locker room," he should show clips of Taylor checking down on 3rd and long while down multiple touchdowns, the OLine letting defensive linemen run by unscathed, and the defense missing tackle after tackle before saying "This is where the locker room lost the head coach. Now get the !@#$ out of my office."

Really??????  Stop it right now.....  There is not a single player on the Bills that wants Peterman starting Sunday (and that includes Nate).....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Jokeman said:

My point is that Tyrod isn't good enough to be a starter and why he was benched to begin with. As we've seen Tyrod at his best against Seattle and Miami last season but not so ironically we lost both of those games. The guy just isn't good enough and that's why McDermott tried something different in Peterman. It's not an endorsement of Peterman but a lack of endorsement for Tyrod and maybe once Tyrod fans can see that we can start to have a real QB discussion.

This point simply defies logic. He's going to be a starter for a while. He's easily been in the top 15-20 QBs, or higher depending who you talk to, every year with a less than stellar supporting cast.

 

McDermott can try whatever he wants, but all he did Sunday was demonstrate all the deficiencies on O that Tyrod helps mask.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

This point simply defies logic. He's going to be a starter for a while. He's easily been in the top 15-20 QBs, or higher depending who you talk to, every year with a less than stellar supporting cast.

 

McDermott can try whatever he wants, but all he did Sunday was demonstrate all the deficiencies on O that Tyrod helps mask.

Less than stellar cast? You mean like guys like Watkins and Woods who are doing more with the Rams than they ever did here? Same could be said of Goodwin in San Fran Or Hogan in New England? If Tyrod starts next year it's because a team is looking for a bridge QB or their starter gets hurt in the preseason. Tyrod is in the bottom 3rd of NFL starters. I mean how many OC is going to take to get him to not be ranked in the late 20s/30s for passing yards per game?

Edited by The Jokeman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Charles Romes said:

 

I'm glad this was brought up.  How often do you see Tyrod mishandle the snap.  Incredibly refined ball security.  

Umm not often but I’d bet more than Nate.  

Didn’t Tyrod fumble and have it returned for a TD?

 

or did I buy someone’s lie? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Umm not often but I’d bet more than Nate.  

Didn’t Tyrod fumble and have it returned for a TD?

 

or did I buy someone’s lie? 

come on shady your better than this....we are microscoping the game this past weekend....potato..pot.a.t.o.......sure a fumble brought back for a TD.....but my PTSD regarding this game is the 5 picks....i believe one of them a pick 6 no?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Jokeman said:

Less than stellar cast? You mean like guys like Watkins and Woods who are doing more with the Rams than they ever did here? Or Hogan in New England? If Tyrod starts next year it's because a team is looking for a bridge QB or their starter gets hurt in the preseason. Tyrod is in the bottom 3rd of NFL starters. I mean how many OC is going to take to get him to not be ranked in the late 20s/30s for passing yards per game?

Woods is doing more than he was here, Watkins is doing less, and as a tandem they are doing almost exactly the same as they have every year of their careers together. Watkins never played a full season with Tyrod here, and as far as WR tandems go there are many better options. The OL was never set up to be solid in pass blocking, but scheme and Tyrod's escapability masked that. Despite that, we had a top 10 offense 2 years running. That doesn't happen with a QB who isn't good enough to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...