Nate Peterman Update

[Bing Bong]

2 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Losman Love....  I just don't get it.   Trent Edwards maybe but Lossman?   

I was pretty young for Losman, so I'm hardly the authority on him.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

6 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

I knew the instructions would be to difficult for some but.....sheesh.

I did put them in order WEO     I suggested a correction in the obvious error you made.   Sorry that a top down rank messed with your >>> 

 

TT love is beyond reproach with the last of the faithful

 

To include Nate 

For the Love of God play Nate just to be rid of Taylor > TT love > EJ love > JPL love    happy?

 

5 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

I was pretty young for Losman, so I'm hardly the authority on him.

Kids these days     

Edited December 19, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan

[Mr. WEO]

33 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I did put them in order WEO     I suggested a correction in the obvious error you made.   Sorry that a top down rank messed with your >>> 

 

TT love is beyond reproach with the last of the faithful

 

To include Nate 

For the Love of God play Nate just to be rid of Taylor > TT love > EJ love > JPL love    happy?

 

Kids these days     

 

 

Ok that's better.

 

I'll put you down for Peterman>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the field.

[ddaryl]

I still can't beleive people are upset about starting Peterman agianst the chargers.. TT was looking putrid and ytou need to shake things up.

 

Starting Peterman might have been the match that was lit under T and the the rest of team and quite possibly is the only reason why we are still in contention. This team lost horendously to the Jets and the Saints... the QB change WAS THE INTETLLIGENT DECISION.

 

I fail to see how anyone could possibly think TT or the team didn't deserve it at that point. 2 huge blowouts with anemic offense production Sure we could of swapped all 11 playe on D or the other 10 on O but in reality the only meanigful move and the one with the most impact for us was QB swap

Edited December 19, 2017 by ddaryl

[billsredneck1]

44 minutes ago, grb said:

 

After the Jets game, who besides message board trolls said Taylor played poorly that Thursday night? Answer : No one. On the contrary, every single Bills' sportswriter / commentator I saw praised him as one of the few Buffalo players who showed up that game. Of course I'm addressing a troll here, but I've noticed even anti-Taylor types who are serious / honest have created an alternate reality where TT played poorly against the Jets. Those of us back on Planet Earth remember him playing hard, efficient and well the entire game - even while hammered by a pass rush immediately on him as he set to throw. I won't say his game was perfect, but look on the bright side : At least he didn't throw five interceptions.......

nor did he try to take advantage of single coverage while romo was yelling in the booth trying to get him to get things going.

[26CornerBlitz]

3 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

I still can't beleive people are upset about starting Peterman agianst the chargers.. TT was looking putrid and ytou need to shake things up.

 

Starting Peterman might have been the match that was lit under T and the the rest of team and quite possibly is the only reason why we are still in contention. This team lost horendously to the Jets and the Saints... the QB change WAS THE INTETLLIGENT DECISION.

 

I fail to see how anyone could possibly think TT or the team didn't deserve it at that point. 2 huge blowouts with anemic offense production Sure we could of swapped all 11 playe on D or the other 10 on O but in reality the only meanigful move and the one with the most impact for us was QB swap

 

How long have you been doing stand up comedy?  

[Mr. WEO]

12 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

I still can't beleive people are upset about starting Peterman agianst the chargers.. TT was looking putrid and ytou need to shake things up.

 

Starting Peterman might have been the match that was lit under T and the the rest of team and quite possibly is the only reason why we are still in contention. This team lost horendously to the Jets and the Saints... the QB change WAS THE INTETLLIGENT DECISION.

 

I fail to see how anyone could possibly think TT or the team didn't deserve it at that point. 2 huge blowouts with anemic offense production Sure we could of swapped all 11 playe on D or the other 10 on O but in reality the only meanigful move and the one with the most impact for us was QB swap

 

 

Ah yes, nothing quenches the offensive thirst after 2 blowout anemic offensive productions----like a historically bad 3rd offensive production!!

[TigerJ]

2 hours ago, JM57 said:

Not trying to be adversarial, but you didn't read the whole post, did you? I watched both games. Against NO he absolutely, flat out, refused to push the ball downfield. He didn't miss throws to open receivers, he didn't make them at all. Against NE, the throws were attempted at least, and were just completely off target.

 

I am not the biggest Tyrod fan. I think he is what he is. A bottom end starter with limitations in his skill set, but a starter nonetheless. What I saw against NO and NE were completely out of character for what I've come to expect of him, but for two different reasons. NO was the most frustrating to watch. I have never seen him be that overly cautious. It felt like watching Trent Edwards before he got the hook for Fitz. Against NE....I cannot remember another game where he so obviously missed so many easy throws. It was clear to me that, even though he was saying he was fine, that knee was not fine. It was limiting his plant or his drive in some way that altered the accuracy of his passes.

It's easy to say that now, but how would we know? The defense never had a chance. The Chargers only needed like 270 yards of offense to score 37 points. Every time the D came off the field, Peterman continued to poop in his hat and chucked the ball right back to the first white helmet he found, regardless of jersey color.

 

The Bills very well might have lost that game with Taylor under center. But I feel pretty confident to say it wouldn't have been a 54-24 loss with 30 points (and a missed FG!) gifted to the Chargers in the first half due to turnovers. I don't know what happened to the kid that day, but it was by far the worst QB performance I've ever seen in the NFL. 

I hope you're right about Taylor's knee being the cause of his terrible Patriots game.

[Teddy KGB]

1 hour ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

It was obviously a horrible decision in hindsight. What is so hard about acknowledging that..

 

The decision to start Tyrod vs the Saints and Pats was horrible too huh ? 

[Lfod]

I think starting Nate Peterman was a desperate move. The team looked like it  was on a serious down trend. Nate Peterman was an unknown and instead of sitting on his hands the HC took the risk and it backfired.

 

It could of been a good move if Nate put on a great performance. It was a bad move because he threw 5 interceptions. You wouldn't know if it was worth the risk until you take it. People look like geniuses when they take risks and it works. People look like fools when those risks backfire. The point is before you take a risk you can't know if it will pay off.

 

It might of made a difference or it might not have. The Bills could of still lost with Tyrod or they might of won. The world will never know. The thing that no one could deny is the team was losing and that respective 5-2 was fading away into Oblivion. 

 

I applaud the HC for at least trying to shake things up and fix the season. It answered questions I had at the time. I never will have to wonder if Nate could of saved the season. I know now that the Bills will just have to live with what Tyrod can do.  

 

I think the HC admitting it was a calculated risk should be respected. That everything was falling apart anyway so what did he have to lose when the team was losing badly anyway. It's not like he benched a guy that was lighting it up all year. 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lfod

[Bing Bong]

4 minutes ago, Air it out Fitzy said:

 

The decision to start Tyrod vs the Saints and Pats was horrible too huh ? 

 no because he is the best quarterback on the roster.

[Teddy KGB]

1 minute ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

 no because he is the best quarterback on the roster.

 

Turn on the hindsight again.    Coulda started Webb and fared better.  

 

Two fat F’s for failure.  

[Bills757]

28 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

I still can't beleive people are upset about starting Peterman agianst the chargers.. TT was looking putrid and ytou need to shake things up.

 

Starting Peterman might have been the match that was lit under T and the the rest of team and quite possibly is the only reason why we are still in contention. This team lost horendously to the Jets and the Saints... the QB change WAS THE INTETLLIGENT DECISION.

 

I fail to see how anyone could possibly think TT or the team didn't deserve it at that point. 2 huge blowouts with anemic offense production Sure we could of swapped all 11 playe on D or the other 10 on O but in reality the only meanigful move and the one with the most impact for us was QB swap

Yea, if you wanna shakes things up, start Peterman.  But dear God, don't let him throw 5 picks in the first half before deciding to take him out.  It killed the team's chance to win AND it could have lasting negative effects on Peterman as well.  

[Doc]

7 hours ago, Magox said:

I wish one of the Bills would have hit Gronk the same way that Lineman slammed Alonzo after the White cheap shot.

 

No team does this.  Oh, wait...

[Bing Bong]

1 minute ago, Air it out Fitzy said:

 

Turn on the hindsight again.    Coulda started Webb and fared better.  

 

Two fat F’s for failure.  

Good lord stahp. I just want to see our best team on the field. If you're saying Webb is better than Tyrod than so be it, but don't act like we should be situationally streaming our quarterback for every game like this is fantasy football. We started our best quarterback, who is no better than mediocre and thus prone to have some bad games, for all but 2 games. One game we benched him for a lesser quarterback and got the worst performance ever.. there's no twisting what happened.

[ddaryl]

9 minutes ago, Bills757 said:

Yea, if you wanna shakes things up, start Peterman.  But dear God, don't let him throw 5 picks in the first half before deciding to take him out.  It killed the team's chance to win AND it could have lasting negative effects on Peterman as well.  

 

 

You give him a chance to dig his way out.. But a couple of those early picks were not on him

 

I don't think it had any real affect on him becuase he looked more poised in the snow game. if anything it opened his eyes.. If the kid has got a shot ant a long career shaking off games liek that is a good sign.. Still need to see more of him, but i was ok with the decisions then..

39 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

How long have you been doing stand up comedy?  

 

 

Not as long as you have been obvioulsy.. Keep up the yuks

30 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Ah yes, nothing quenches the offensive thirst after 2 blowout anemic offensive productions----like a historically bad 3rd offensive production!!

 

 

but you had to try, and what happened after that QB swap.... were back in the playoff conversation... Call it what you will but TT wasn't looking so good and the you make the QB change.. Understood the decsion and I stil agree with it

[Bills757]

5 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

 

 

You give him a chance to dig his way out.. But a couple of those early picks were not on him

 

I don't think it had any real affect on him becuase he looked more poised in the snow game. if anything it opened his eyes.. If the kid has got a shot ant a long career shaking off games liek that is a good sign.. Still need to see more of him, but i was ok with the decisions then..

 

 

Not as long as you have been obvioulsy.. Keep up the yuks

 

 

but you had to try, and what happened after that QB swap.... were back in the playoff conversation... Call it what you will but TT wasn't looking so good and the you make the QB change.. Understood the decsion and I stil agree with it

 

So you decide to throw Peterman out there against a pass rush like LAC?  Yea, okay.  That's a smart move.  As far as the interceptions, the first one was a bullet from close range...not completely his fault but a pick nonetheless.  The second and third INT's were horribly thrown balls under pressure....looked like ducks floating in the air.  The fourth one he stared down the receiver big time.  Between the 4th and 5th pick he almost threw another one.  And the last pick was so off-course, it wasn't even funny.  So I don't know where you can say "a couple of those picks were not on him"......not sure what you were watching.

 

By the way, whatever happened to Dennison's offense being about rolling the pocket and getting the QB in space to have the ability to run or throw?  At this point, you've got probably the most mobile QB in the league and you stay with the 5 step drops.....why not get Taylor out of the pocket and let him tuck and run more?  Dennison's problem is he goes into the tank way too early.  It's not hard to figure out that's his M.O.

[JM57]

2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

That's a lot of ducks to line up for a win. Are you saying Tyrod starting was an automatic win vs the Chargers? After the Jets and Saints debacles, I seriously doubt you even believed that. I know for a fact the majority here wanted Taylor benched because "how much worse could Peterman be?"  A lot of amnesia set in later.

Oh no, I'm not saying it was an automatic win. What I'm saying is it's not an automatic loss, which is what 5 INTs in a half is. That obviously isn't what anyone expected to happen, but it did, and it will likely come back to bite this team in the ass.

20 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

 

 

You give him a chance to dig his way out.. But a couple of those early picks were not on him

 

I don't think it had any real affect on him becuase he looked more poised in the snow game. if anything it opened his eyes.. If the kid has got a shot ant a long career shaking off games liek that is a good sign.. Still need to see more of him, but i was ok with the decisions then..

 

 

Not as long as you have been obvioulsy.. Keep up the yuks

 

 

but you had to try, and what happened after that QB swap.... were back in the playoff conversation... Call it what you will but TT wasn't looking so good and the you make the QB change.. Understood the decsion and I stil agree with it

They weren't on him if you don't want them to be. You can blame #1 on Dimarco because it hit him in the hands. Or you could watch the replay and see Peterman threw it awkwardly off his back foot which will have a negative effect on accuracy. He then threw #2 and #3 (or #3 and #4 I can't remember anymore but they were back to back) as desperation back foot heaves that should never, ever be made outside of a hail mary situation.

49 minutes ago, TigerJ said:

I hope you're right about Taylor's knee being the cause of his terrible Patriots game.

I honestly hope I am too. Like I said, I'm no expert but I don't remember him ever being that inaccurate, at least not throw after throw after throw. Usually he misses one or two and then hits a few on a bad day, you know?

[Lfod]

10 minutes ago, JM57 said:

Oh no, I'm not saying it was an automatic win. What I'm saying is it's not an automatic loss, which is what 5 INTs in a half is. That obviously isn't what anyone expected to happen, but it did, and it will likely come back to bite this team in the ass.

A lot of offensive possessions leading to no first downs isn't gonna win you a game either. Not 5 interception bad but not good either. 

 

Even when the defence was a turnover machine the team the Bills would barely win when it should of been total destruction. The Miami game should of been total destruction and it wasn't.

 

You can say it was a bad move after the fact but don't be afraid to acknowledge that the team was spanked two games in a row before the benching. Not exactly any easy sell to say it would of been a win if not for the benching of Tyrod.

 

We barely beat KC in the same fashion that we barely beat the Colts with a rookie and his backup. 

Edited December 19, 2017 by Lfod

[grb]

1 hour ago, Air it out Fitzy said:

 

Turn on the hindsight again.    Coulda started Webb and fared better.  

 

Two fat F’s for failure.  

 

You don't need hindsight on such an imbecilic decision. Let's review, shall we? Taylor played well against Tampa. He played well against Oakland. He played well against New York. Then he played poorly against the Saints and was benched. If that sounds bizarre, then maybe you see why some people today try to rewrite history and claim TT was bad in the Jets game. That narrative (however bogus) makes McDermott look a little less the fool. Meanwhile - over the same four game stretch - the Bills' defense was allowing a league worst four hundred yards of offense per game. So : quarterback change, of course.... Getting the sense some people weren't firing on all cylinders here? So why do it?

 

The answer is simple, but even more damning. It seems Dennison / McDermott thought Peterman fit more to their exalted system. Apparently that trumped talent, experience, skill, common sense and the evidence of their eyes. The Chargers' game was the result.......

Edited December 19, 2017 by grb