Prescott vs Peterman

[Scott7975]

Romo was injured to start the year. Prescott came out of the gate winning football games. You don't pull the hot hand. 

[buffaloboyinATL]

Even though Prescott came in due to an injury, there was still a lot of people second guessing the move and predicting complete failure. Many still blamed the lack of post season success on the decision to play Prescott over Romo.  The biggest difference is that Prescott succeeded for the most part and Peterman had 5 picks in the first half. If Peterman had performed better, McDermott would be hailed as a bold genius and the media would stop the "I told you so" rants.

 

There is still a chance this could happen if he came in and had success going forward, but the risk becomes greater each time he struggles and eventually outweighs the reward.

[Billzgobowlin]

1 minute ago, Scott7975 said:

Romo was injured to start the year. Prescott came out of the gate winning football games. You don't pull the hot hand. 

Yet you have a first rounder in Sanchez on the bench?  No one knew Prescott at that point and the media didn't criticize that at all compared to Peterman, that's my point.

[BrooklynBills]

Prescott was also a much better prospect and fell to the 4th round because of a DUI before the draft.

 

 

[Scott7975]

3 minutes ago, Billzgobowlin said:

Yet you have a first rounder in Sanchez on the bench?  No one knew Prescott at that point and the media didn't criticize that at all compared to Peterman, that's my point.

By then Sanchez was hot garbage. Didn't watch Prescot in preseason or practices. Maybe he looked good? Also the change wasn't made in the middle of the season while holding a playoff spot. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by Scott7975

[Billzgobowlin]

2 minutes ago, buffaloboyinATL said:

Even though Prescott came in due to an injury, there was still a lot of people second guessing the move and predicting complete failure. Many still blamed the lack of post season success on the decision to play Prescott over Romo.  The biggest difference is that Prescott succeeded for the most part and Peterman had 5 picks in the first half. If Peterman had performed better, McDermott would be hailed as a bold genius and the media would stop the "I told you so" rants.

 

There is still a chance this could happen if he came in and had success going forward, but the risk becomes greater each time he struggles and eventually outweighs the reward.

Prescott also didn't have matadors as Tackles too.  I think people do get caught up on the number total of INTs and I get that but if some of these sports reporters or former NFL QBs weren't lazy and reviewed the film they would have realized what really happened.  Reporters today are just plain lazy especially on the national level.  

[JohnC]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It should be enough to shut up all the people who keep telling me left tackle isn't the important position it used to be in the NFL and it's all about offensive weapons these days and guys who can make plays.  

 

To me the Quarterback is the most important guy on the field.  Joint second is the guy you employ to keep your QB protected (primarily his blindside protector at Left Tackle) and the guy you employ to get the opponents Quarterback on the floor.  I'm not quite Bill from NYC in thinking that receivers and corners are ten a penny (or 10 a cent presumably in US money) a lockdown corner and a #1WR are next on the list.... but it starts with your QB, your LT and your pass rusher.  

The OL in general has taken a dramatic step down. Glenn has been hurt for most of the year and Dawkins has at times been overwhelmed. However, he does show go athleticism. Incongnito two years ago was one of the best guards in the league. Now he is much diminished. He's still a wily player. Wood is hardnosed but an average center. The RG and RT players are less than mediocre. 

 

The bottom line is you can go up and down the lineup on both sides of the ball and collectively conclude that this is a very second-rate roster. That's why the roster is being rebuilt. On top of this collection of pedestrian players this franchise hasn't had a franchise qb for almost a quarter century, and still don't. How anyone can honestly believe that this is a playoff team is beyond me!

[Billzgobowlin]

Just now, Scott7975 said:

By then Sanchez was hot garbage. Didn't watch Prescot in preseason or practices. Also the change wasn't made in the middle of the season while holding a playoff spot. 

True but the big thing I have kept hearing is how could they let a 5th rounder start and in the same breath mention if it were Mahomes they would understand

[JohnBonhamRocks]

I subscribe to BPA, but will find it tough not to be pissed if there are no OL taken with one of those top 5 picks in April. 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, JohnBonhamRocks said:

I subscribe to BPA, but will find it tough not to be pissed if there are no OL taken with one of those top 5 picks in April. 

 

The good news is on early inspection I think the 2018 OL class promises to be better than the putrid 2017 OL class.  The bad news is it is still not the deepest.  

[Mat68]

Precotte wasnt beating out Romo.  If the Cowboys last year were sitting in the wildcard slot half way through the season Jerry Jones would not have benched Romo for Prescotte.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

40 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Have you ever watched the Twilight Zone or X-Files on TV? You have to have a "Cosmic" mentality to appreciate the shows.

You have to have a "Cosmic" mentality to appreciate the Bills.

[Kirby Jackson]

43 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Have you ever watched the Twilight Zone or X-Files on TV? You have to have a "Cosmic" mentality to appreciate the shows.

A little bit but not religiously. Stranger Things is my go to for shows like that.

40 minutes ago, Billzgobowlin said:

This thread wasn't started to provide crazy assumptions but rather to elicit some thought about why it was taboo for a 5th round rookie to start and not a 4th rounder.  And the Cowboys did have a former first round pick in Mark Sanchez on the team when they decided to go with Prescott.

It’s not that complicated though. Prescott played against the 1’s in preseason with Romo INJURED and was great. The year started and Romo was INJURED. They started 6-1 and Prescott was great. It’s apples and oranges. If you replaced the words Prescott with Peterman and Romo with Tyrod in the above no one would argue it. The situation is totally different.

[JohnBonhamRocks]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

The good news is on early inspection I think the 2018 OL class promises to be better than the putrid 2017 OL class.  The bad news is it is still not the deepest.  

 

That is good news. It only takes one. Right now, I think Dawkins is our most consistent OL if considering availability and ability. 

 

2 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

A little bit but not religiously. Stranger Things is my go to for shows like that.

 

Leggo my Eggos. 

[Billzgobowlin]

4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

A little bit but not religiously. Stranger Things is my go to for shows like that.

It’s not that complicated though. Prescott played against the 1’s in preseason with Romo INJURED and was great. The year started and Romo was INJURED. They started 6-1 and Prescott was great. It’s apples and oranges. If you replaced the words Prescott with Peterman and Romo with Tyrod in the above no one would argue it. The situation is totally different.

Agreed

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Agree.

The majority of people believed that the Bills were on the precipice of success. That tracks the same foolhardy over-assessment of the roster that Whaley had. Every year he would make moves, sometimes gratuitously giving up picks, to get this bedraggled team over the hump. The reality  was that the hump was of a mountainous size. What people fail to recognize was that the wrestling coach was not hired to add on to Whaley's roster, he was brought in to demolish it and start from scratch. Not only was the roster  being demolished but so was the organization that the former GM put together. Every single scout on his staff was let go. What does that tell you about the confidence that the owner had in DW's handiwork?

 

The Bills are involved in a major rebuild. This is not a quick fix. I see a three to four year project. I understand why people are so frustrated. But those people who believed that this was a serious team before the season began were deluding themselves. Understandably their fires got stoked with a good start. It was essentially a sugar high. The reality is that McDermott aggressively stripped down this team and accumulated picks. He didn't do it because he thought the team was close to being successful. He did it because he made a judicious assessment of the roster and knew he had to do a major demolition before he could start the construction. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Billzgobowlin said:

I was thinking about it this morning and with Sunday's game not withstanding why was the media so critical of Buffalo replacing Taylor but not the Cowboys replacing Romo.  The Cowboys were a playoff team with Romo there and it wasn't like Prescott was a top pick (he was 4th as opposed to Peterman being a 5th).  Got me also thinking if Peterman were in Dallas would he have done well with a decent O line.  People are complaining that Prescott struggled because he was missing Tyron, well replace his whole line with ours.  I think Peterman should be given time like Prescott to figure it out and if they don't make the playoffs it will be partial the team around him like defense and Oline and not just QB.  Let's face it Taylor doesn't win in this league unless this defense plays better and the O line can figure out pass protection(it wasn't like Peterman was holding onto the ball too long).

 

Interesting points. 

First, the situation is different.    Romo suffered a fractured vertebra in a preseason game and went on IR for 10 weeks.   So their backup had to start.  Taylor was a healthy scratch.

Second, Prescott had shown himself to be quite effective in preseason: 39-50 454 (78%) 9.1 AY/A, 5 TD, 0 INT, 2 sacks, rating 137.8

Here for comparison are Peterman's stats: 43-79 453 (54%) 5.7 AY/A, 1 TD, 0 INT, 4 sacks rating 75.6.

I grant you there's no sign in those stats of last Sunday's implosion, but there's also nothing to make you think (as with Prescott) "Wow, this kid's got it!".

 

That is why the media is critical: no choice due to injury, vs choice to change QB while the team has a winning record, and epically poor run D appears to be the most significant problem. 

 

A better OL would help any QB, not just Peterman, so where would be the logic in blaming the line for the performance of one QB, but not for another who has objectively much better stats?  I do not get the Peterman love.

[JohnC]

13 minutes ago, Formerly Allan in MD said:

You have to have a "Cosmic" mentality to appreciate the Bills.

You are so right. It can be so hard at times! It just seems to unfair. The "Why Me" syndrome does constantly come up. If you don't have a sense of humor and perspective you will be miserable. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

The first pick was a big momentum changer and then things snowballed.  As you indicate, the big difference between Prescott and Peterman is that Prescott has the best O line in the league in front of him. 

 

I think the Bills will draft a QB day 1 or 2 next spring.  And I think Peterman will be the starter opening day next year.

 

Um, no, the big difference between Prescott and Peterman is that Prescott showed signs of being a very good QB in preseason.

Peterman did some nice things, but overall "meh"

[Billzgobowlin]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Um, no, the big difference between Prescott and Peterman is that Prescott showed signs of being a very good QB in preseason.

Peterman did some nice things, but overall "meh"

Maybe unfairly but I think the end of the Saints game played into Peterman starting last week.

[tlfcbb]

38 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Tyrod is limited as I have said many times and the Bills need to look to the draft to find their potential franchise guy.  Neither of the current QBs on the roster are that guy IMO.

Hi 26, we were all disappointed with Nate on Sunday.  You seem to have made up your mind that he is not starter material based on a half of football (albeit a very bad half).  I would like to ask you a serious question - if we draft a QB early next year and his first half of football is as poor as Nate's, will you give up on him as quickly?  My feeling is that people would be less likely to give up on a first round pick than a 5th rounder.  Look at Goff for a perfect example. 

 

My own view is that we are right to go with Taylor while we are still in the hunt.  However, if we lose are next 2 or 3 games I would give Nate another chance to see if last week was simply a one off.  What do you think?

[GunnerBill]

11 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The majority of people believed that the Bills were on the precipice of success. That tracks the same foolhardy over-assessment of the roster that Whaley had. Every year he would make moves, sometimes gratuitously giving up picks, to get this bedraggled team over the hump. The reality  was that the hump was of a mountainous size. What people fail to recognize was that the wrestling coach was not hired to add on to Whaley's roster, he was brought in to demolish it and start from scratch. Not only was the roster  being demolished but so was the organization that the former GM put together. Every single scout on his staff was let go. What does that tell you about the confidence that the owner had in DW's handiwork?

 

The Bills are involved in a major rebuild. This is not a quick fix. I see a three to four year project. I understand why people are so frustrated. But those people who believed that this was a serious team before the season began were deluding themselves. Understandably their fires got stoked with a good start. It was essentially a sugar high. The reality is that McDermott aggressively stripped down this team and accumulated picks. He didn't do it because he thought the team was close to being successful. He did it because he made a judicious assessment of the roster and knew he had to do a major demolition before he could start the construction. 

 

Whilst I agree with a lot of that there is a question about the approach they have taken to roster stripping.  Who starts a rebuild by intentionally getting rid of young cheap players? The Darby, Watkins and Ragland deals and the JWill cut for example?  Getting rid of a malcontent on a big pay day like Dareus and taking the cap hit pain now I understand... that fits with a tear down.  Re-signing Alexander, begging Kyle to come back, starting Ramon Humber over Matt Milano and Ducasse over Miller..... none of those moves suggest a coherent approach to the tear down.  You don't tear down by removing cheap and young.  You tear down by removing expensive and old.  I guess that is why fans are frustrated and confused.  While I am far from giving up on this regime 10 games in I confess I don't really understand their approach to this. 

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, tlfcbb said:

Hi 26, we were all disappointed with Nate on Sunday.  You seem to have made up your mind that he is not starter material based on a half of football (albeit a very bad half).  I would like to ask you a serious question - if we draft a QB early next year and his first half of football is as poor as Nate's, will you give up on him as quickly?  My feeling is that people would be less likely to give up on a first round pick than a 5th rounder.  Look at Goff for a perfect example. 

 

My own view is that we are right to go with Taylor while we are still in the hunt.  However, if we lose are next 2 or 3 games I would give Nate another chance to see if last week was simply a one off.  What do you think?

 

I don't think he's starter material, but it isn't based on just last week.  Rather it is because of what I have seen from his CFB days as well as this preseason. Last week just affirmed what I already thought and I have compared him to Brian Hoyer. I would view a different prospect with greater potential differently.

 

 I'd be fine with playing him for the remainder of the season if and when the Bills are elimiNATEd from playoff contention as I have previously posted on several occasions. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Billzgobowlin said:

That wasn't my intent to say he should be playing but somehow a 5th rounder being played is taboo because we were 5-4 and in the playoff hunt.  

1 hour ago, Billzgobowlin said:

This thread wasn't started to provide crazy assumptions but rather to elicit some thought about why it was taboo for a 5th round rookie to start and not a 4th rounder.  And the Cowboys did have a former first round pick in Mark Sanchez on the team when they decided to go with Prescott.

 

There is no "taboo" on  playing a 5th rounder vs playing a 4th rounder.  It's all based upon circumstance and performance.

 

If the Cowboys were sitting at a 5-4 record with Romo playing "meh" but not awfully (ex: not throwing multiple pick-six per game) and in the playoff hunt, and the Cowboys decided to bench him healthy in favor of a 4th round rookie who looked "blah" in preseason with a 54% completion rate and 1 TD in preseason (vs 78% and 5 TD), they would have faced as much or more criticism.

 

Mark Sanchez was a 7 year vet who had played himself on and off 4 teams at the point the Boys signed him, and who was signed AFTER Romo was injured as a backup to Prescott.  No one thought he was a better option at that point, given how Prescott had looked in preseason.  But if he;d been in camp with a 78% completion and 5 TD in preseason while Prescott had preseason stats like Peterman, yes, the decision to start Prescott would have been critiqued beforehand and second-guessed afterwards esp. if he threw 5 picks.

 

[Billzgobowlin]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

There is no "taboo" on  playing a 5th rounder vs playing a 4th rounder.  It's all based upon circumstance and performance.

 

If the Cowboys were sitting at a 5-4 record with Romo playing "meh" but not awfully (ex: not throwing multiple pick-six per game) and in the playoff hunt, and the Cowboys decided to bench him healthy in favor of a 4th round rookie who looked "blah" in preseason with a 54% completion rate and 1 TD in preseason (vs 78% and 5 TD), they would have faced as much or more criticism.

 

Mark Sanchez was a 7 year vet who had played himself on and off 4 teams at the point the Boys signed him, and who was signed AFTER Romo was injured as a backup to Prescott.  No one thought he was a better option at that point, given how Prescott had looked in preseason.  But if he;d been in camp with a 78% completion and 5 TD in preseason while Prescott had preseason stats like Peterman, yes, the decision to start Prescott would have been critiqued beforehand and second-guessed afterwards esp. if he threw 5 picks.

 

So I am curious how much the preseason stats would be with a better line like Dallas has and how much does that play into who you start

[JohnC]

7 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Whilst I agree with a lot of that there is a question about the approach they have taken to roster stripping.  Who starts a rebuild by intentionally getting rid of young cheap players? The Darby, Watkins and Ragland deals and the JWill cut for example?  Getting rid of a malcontent on a big pay day like Dareus and taking the cap hit pain now I understand... that fits with a tear down.  Re-signing Alexander, begging Kyle to come back, starting Ramon Humber over Matt Milano and Ducasse over Miller..... none of those moves suggest a coherent approach to the tear down.  You don't tear down by removing cheap and young.  You tear down by removing expensive and old.  I guess that is why fans are frustrated and confused.  While I am far from giving up on this regime 10 games in I confess I don't really understand their approach to this. 

I understand why Darby and Ragland were dealt for a schematic standpoint. I also understand why Watkins was deal on a variety of fronts. The Williams cut on a team that had a dearth of backs still has me confounded. I'm not saying it was a consequential transaction simply mystifying to me. 

 

I understand why Kyle Williams and to a lesser extent Alexander was kept. You can't strip away all the support beams and not expect a collapse. It is never wrong to have a Kyle Williams in the locker room. With respect to Humber over Milano or Ducasse over Miller who really cares? In the grand scheme of things does it really matter because none of the players are essential players. When you make a lot of decisions and most of them are small not everyone of them is going to work out.

 

It can't be forgotten that the Bills are in a business. So you have to keep a veneer of competing or the cash flow will be severely stressed. When any team goes through the excruciating process of rebuilding there are going to be a lot of insignificant little decisions. How they go one way or the other I don't particularly care. It is the general direction that is being taken that is important. That's what is meaningful. Do we come up with a potential franchise qb in tis next draft? Do we have to deal off picks to get that qb prospect? How much talent is going to be added by the next crucial draft? Who do we bring in with the increased cap space? That's what I am really concerned with. 

 

As far as the Taylor vs Peterman debate my response is simply I don't give a dam! It means little in the grand scheme of things. Too much emotion and energy is being invested in a decision that will not have much long term consequence. Neither will be our franchise qb in the future. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Whilst I agree with a lot of that there is a question about the approach they have taken to roster stripping.  Who starts a rebuild by intentionally getting rid of young cheap players? The Darby, Watkins and Ragland deals and the JWill cut for example?  Getting rid of a malcontent on a big pay day like Dareus and taking the cap hit pain now I understand... that fits with a tear down.  Re-signing Alexander, begging Kyle to come back, starting Ramon Humber over Matt Milano and Ducasse over Miller..... none of those moves suggest a coherent approach to the tear down.  You don't tear down by removing cheap and young.  You tear down by removing expensive and old.  I guess that is why fans are frustrated and confused.  While I am far from giving up on this regime 10 games in I confess I don't really understand their approach to this. 

 

Gunner, you're absolutely right and that's my problem with what I've seen so far....

I understand that changes need to be made, the cap situation cleared, etc.

Too often, our newly hired coaches have tried to create something different (a winning team) by keeping too much the same.

 

I even understand Watkins who was about to demand a huge payday to stay, and they got reasonably good value. 

But you're darn straight, a lot of what they've done is get rid of young players with talent on cheap rookie deals, and replace them with aging 1 year rent-a-players; they have retained (begged to stay) or resigned aging vets who some see as falling off (Kyle Williams, Eric Wood, 'Zo), etc.

 

Dareus was a malcontent, but he was also the only DL who could stuff two blockers and hold steady; his loss is far from the only problem on D, but it didn't help.

And with all the roster turnover (100% on DB, all the starting WR, 50% on Dl) they've failed to make enough change on the team's area of biggest weakness (OL).

 

That's a good polite way to put it: I don't really understand their approach to this.

 

 

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

The majority of people believed that the Bills were on the precipice of success. That tracks the same foolhardy over-assessment of the roster that Whaley had. Every year he would make moves, sometimes gratuitously giving up picks, to get this bedraggled team over the hump. The reality  was that the hump was of a mountainous size. What people fail to recognize was that the wrestling coach was not hired to add on to Whaley's roster, he was brought in to demolish it and start from scratch. Not only was the roster  being demolished but so was the organization that the former GM put together. Every single scout on his staff was let go. What does that tell you about the confidence that the owner had in DW's handiwork?

 

The Bills are involved in a major rebuild. This is not a quick fix. I see a three to four year project. I understand why people are so frustrated. But those people who believed that this was a serious team before the season began were deluding themselves. Understandably their fires got stoked with a good start. It was essentially a sugar high. The reality is that McDermott aggressively stripped down this team and accumulated picks. He didn't do it because he thought the team was close to being successful. He did it because he made a judicious assessment of the roster and knew he had to do a major demolition before he could start the construction. 

 

What a crock!  The Bills have been "involved in a major rebuild" for 17 years, and are further from achieving any kind of success today than they were January 1, 2017 thanks to McDermott, Beane, and the Bills FO.  

[starrymessenger]

2 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

As if Peterman compares favorably with Prescott with regard to the physical attributes that make him successful.  People seem desperate to find justification to keep playing Not Ready Nate. 

 

How did EJ and JaMarcus compare with Dak? Physically I mean.

[starrymessenger]

2 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Same OL Taylor played behind.  No excuses for the purportedly "most pro ready QB in the draft"   What a crock that was. 

 

The same offensive (with the emphasis on "offensive") line that allowed a Jets team not good at getting after the QB (unlike the Bolts) to sack Tyrod, an acknowledged escape artist, how many times exactly? Care to remind me? 

[starrymessenger]

2 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Prescott was okay in his 1st game action in the regular season.  He certainly didn't throw up all over himself like Not Ready Nate. 

 

How do you think he would have done if his first game had been last Sunday behind our O-line with our TEs and WRs?

If Peterman had started with that Boys team instead I think he would have looked a lot better. He might even have looked very good. You know Fitz tore it up his first game action. Passed for more than 300 yrds if I remember correctly. But if Peterman had been successful behind a good line and with superior weapons we actually wouldn't be that much further ahead in evaluating him than we are now. That would in either case take more time. 

Some posters say the kid has already been ruined by his bad start. I think he probably has more character than that. Actually because it was so rough I think what happened Sunday will be an excellent learning experience.  For sure he now has a better idea of just how big the gap can be between Syracuse and the NFL. I don't think it will kill him. I think it will help make him stronger. 

Will such experiences teach him to be strong enuf? Too early to say imo.

[Kelly the Dog]

Apples and orangutans. 

[26CornerBlitz]

4 minutes ago, starrymessenger said:

 

How do you think he would have done if his first game had been last Sunday behind our O-line with our TEs and WRs?

If Peterman had started with that Boys team instead I think he would have looked a lot better. He might even have looked very good. You know Fitz tore it up his first game action. Passed for more than 300 yrds if I remember correctly. But if Peterman had been successful behind a good line and with superior weapons we actually wouldn't be that much further ahead in evaluating him than we are now. That would in either case take more time. 

Some posters say the kid has already been ruined by his bad start. I think he probably has more character than that. Actually because it was so rough I think what happened Sunday will be an excellent learning experience.  For sure he now has a better idea of just how big the gap can be between Syracuse and the NFL. I don't think it will kill him. I think it will help make him stronger. 

Will such experiences teach him to be strong enuf? Too early to say imo.

 

Who can really know? But I don't believe he'd show such a startling lack of poise by throwing the ball up in the middle of the field when pressured.  Peterman was completely unprepared for the task despite the talk of his maturity and being the most ready prospect in the '17 draft.   He was embarrassingly bad. 

[starrymessenger]

1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Who can really know? But I don't believe he'd show such a startling lack of poise by throwing the ball up in the middle of the field when pressured.  Peterman was completely unprepared for the task despite the talk of his maturity and being the most ready prospect in the '17 draft.   He was embarrassingly bad. 

 

Certainly Peterman was not ready to start, and should not have started, on this team against that team. In retrospect it was a mistake. Trying to force a throw when you are better off taking the sack is very typical of a raw rookie. Doesn't mean he can't or will never learn. Only time will tell imo.

[Utah John]

A team with a winning culture and a good chance to go to the SB every year is like a bonfire.  Throw another log on, and it will burn.  The Bills had that in the early 90s and did everything they could think of to ruin things.  Firing coaches, firing brilliant GMs, having a game each year in Toronto to make some extra cash.  Keeping Littman and the rest of Ralph's inner circle in control of operations.  Horrible waste of a great situation.

 

A team with a losing reputation, that's not going anywhere that year or next year, is like a pile of wet logs with some kindling mixed in.  You'll get a little heat but mostly smoke. 

 

Players want rings.  They want endorsements and glamour.  The reason Watkins and Darby were traded was they would never have re-signed here, and it was better to get something for the future than watch them leave like Gilmore, Gillislee, and Hogan.  Who all went straight to the biggest bonfire they could find when they had the chance.  At least we don't have Brady passing to Watkins to worry about.

 

Since the rules are different now than when Polian built the 90s Bills, the only way to get the fire going is to bring in a lot of young, good players at once, before the guys here now reach the end of their rookie contracts and walk away.  So stockpile a lot of picks and hope most of them work out.  In two or three years, these guys are strong veterans and the team is winning consistently.  The approach the Bills are taking is the ONLY way out of this mess.  There's no guarantee they're going to succeed and considering how badly they usually draft success is a long shot.  But it's the only shot we've got.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Utah John

[JMF2006]

Dak is looking pretty ordinary this year.

[Captain Hindsight]

Peterman was so bad last week he set records, and not the kind you want to be associated with.  Someday they kid may be competent, but comparing him to Prescott is absurd. Doesn't matter who is blocking for him or who his skill guys are.  He is far closer to Ryan Lindley right now than Prescott.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

What a crock!  The Bills have been "involved in a major rebuild" for 17 years, and are further from achieving any kind of success today than they were January 1, 2017 thanks to McDermott, Beane, and the Bills FO.  

You have no clue what is going on and what has been going on. Whaley, Levy and Buddy never went into a serious rebuild mode. Buddy more than Whaley and Levy recognized that the roster needed a major overhaul. That's what is going on here. McDermott had nothing to do with the prior generation of incompetence. He is at least trying to address the fundamental issue of reworking the roster and cap so that it can have some sustained success. If you believe that this was going to be a quick fix job then you might be a fine fellow but you are very naïve. 

 

The way Whaley directed the team the best that could have been hoped for was respectability. McDermott is going for a higher goal that takes more time to accomplish. There is no doubt that some talent has been stripped from the roster in return for picks and cap space. Right now this team is closer to being an expansion caliber of team than a serious team i.e. a team capable of not only qualifying for the playoffs but winning a game in the postseason. It may be a harsh reality to you but it is still a reality.  

[LABILLBACKER]

8 hours ago, Billzgobowlin said:

I was thinking about it this morning and with Sunday's game not withstanding why was the media so critical of Buffalo replacing Taylor but not the Cowboys replacing Romo.  The Cowboys were a playoff team with Romo there and it wasn't like Prescott was a top pick (he was 4th as opposed to Peterman being a 5th).  Got me also thinking if Peterman were in Dallas would he have done well with a decent O line.  People are complaining that Prescott struggled because he was missing Tyron, well replace his whole line with ours.  I think Peterman should be given time like Prescott to figure it out and if they don't make the playoffs it will be partial the team around him like defense and Oline and not just QB.  Let's face it Taylor doesn't win in this league unless this defense plays better and the O line can figure out pass protection(it wasn't like Peterman was holding onto the ball too long).

The problem isnt Peterman or Tyrod. Its this embarrassing oline which has quit on their fans and the organization. I know we don't have a ton of talent there, but really?

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

8 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

The first pick was a big momentum changer and then things snowballed.  As you indicate, the big difference between Prescott and Peterman is that Prescott has the best O line in the league in front of him. 

 

I think the Bills will draft a QB day 1 or 2 next spring.  And I think Peterman will be the starter opening day next year.

 

 

...if memory serves me, they built it through the draft with three 1st rounders.......and unleashed Murray behind it with 390+ carries......