[Misleading Title]Chargers QB benching

[Bing Bong]

4 hours ago, CLTbills said:

It doesn't matter. We wouldn't have won that game with any quarterback that day. It's a moot point.

no, I literally said in the OP. Chargers are not that good. But they look better with 5 interceptions first half.

8 hours ago, McBean said:

To much has been said about Nate's first start.

 

It was the perfect storm. Going against one of the league's best defensive line combined with KB getting hurt first possession, it was down hill.

 

Out of the 5 picks, two wasn't the guys fault. 

 

I bet given a full season to start, Nate would put up better numbers than TT if I had to bet.

 

JMO.

so don't start him at Chargers in 2017 = bad coaching decision.

[Wily Dog]

 

49 minutes ago, Air it out Fitzy said:

 

Unless you follow the chain of events that preceded the decision. 

 

 

 

There is no way you can talk to the posters who think Peterman through five interceptions on his own. He had Help, one from a back who on a pass that should have been caught and two on "lookout" blocks that allowed him 2 seconds to pass.Whether the blocks were the result of malice by the blockers is a matter that the coaches will have to sort out. Bosa said "he didn't block me". McD is going to be around awhile and I would think that a marginal tackle would think before "playing games" with his future.

 

 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Wily Dog
the first post should not be there

[Heitz]

41 minutes ago, Air it out Fitzy said:

 

Unless you follow the chain of events that preceded the decision. 

 

Or the game itself - yes, it WAS Nate that threw those 5 picks, but the O line was not helping his cause...

 

The kid was getting crushed by the Chargers D from the jump and losing KB on the first play of the game didn't help. 

 

Could TT have escaped that pass rush a few times, or maybe held the ball and not throw the picks?  Sure.  But that pass rush was ferocious and I don't any of our QB's (even Joe Webb's Special Package) would have had a good day in LA...

 

 

[26CornerBlitz]

2 minutes ago, Wily Dog said:

There is way you can talk to the posters who think Peterman through five interceptions on his own. He had Help, one from a back who on a pass that should have been caught and two on "lookout" blocks that allowed him 2 seconds to pass.Whether the blocks were the result of malice by the blockers is a matter that the coaches will have to sort out. Bosa said "he didn't block me". McD is going to be around awhile and I would think that a marginal tackle would think before "playing games" with his future.

 

What?  The very same OL that "blocked" for Taylor on a weekly basis.  Excuses. 

[What a Tuel]

I saw this topic, and thought why would they bench Rivers?!? That's awesome....then realized we are still agonizing over this stupid game. The way the team played, Tyrod was not winning it either. Get over it.

[Wily Dog]

As i said there is no way you can talk to the posters ................

[twoandfourteen]

No one is mentioning Peterman's fumble that was run back for a TD against the Chargers. 

 

That never would have happened if Tyrod had started!

 

McDermott is an idiot! 

 

 

[Rochesterfan]

9 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

In hindsight, Peterman wasn't ready. That's obvious. I can't fault McDermott for wanting to do something to spark the offense, his error was believing NP was up to the task. Regardless, the Bills were playing horribly at the time with Taylor at the controls. The Chargers were in the midst of a hot streak, and Keenan Allen was virtually uncoverable at WR for a stretch. With Lynns knowledge of defending Taylor thrown in, I don't see the Bills winning that game either way. Taylor HAS improved since then, with the opening drive vs NE being his one critical error since the benching. Perhaps it had some positive effect on his play. If you want to play the what if game, take a look at the loss @ CIN. The Bills had the benefit of multiple takeaways in that game, and Taylor failed to get them in the end zone with a first down in the red area. Or a wasted defensive effort at CAR, in which the moribund passing offense produced just a FG. Those are critical in the Bills playoff scenarios as well. 

 

Has he really improved since the benching - KC we won and he almost threw for 200 yards and had a TD.  The Patriots - once again he did not even hit 75 yards for the game before giving way to Peterman.  Then out a game with injury and a good game against Miami.

 

His last 3 starts are his career in a nutshell.  1 terrible game that he did nothing in - that was winnable with even a passable effort, but he did nothing.  1 very average game with no turnovers and 1 above average game.  He is so inconsistent it is not funny.  

 

TT is what he has been and I will keep saying it.  He is a below average QB that benefits from his athletic ability and the fact that he will not take a chance with the ball.  There is a time and place for that, but TT has not shown that recognition yet and you still see him struggle late in games when we are down big (see NO or NE) to throw the ball into windows or speed up the progression or even speed up the offense and run something like a hurry up.  

 

This is multiple HCs and OCs with the same results - this is a player issue not coaching.

[The Big Cat]

10 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I don’t think that anyone believes Peterman should have started. It was a mistake. At the same time there’s no reason to rehash it on the verge of a huge couple of weeks. Let’s move forward and focus on what needs to happen to get into the playoffs.

 

Actually 81 of 150 respondents believe Petetman should have started.

[Kirby Jackson]

10 hours ago, McBean said:

To much has been said about Nate's first start.

 

It was the perfect storm. Going against one of the league's best defensive line combined with KB getting hurt first possession, it was down hill.

 

Out of the 5 picks, two wasn't the guys fault. 

 

I bet given a full season to start, Nate would put up better numbers than TT if I had to bet.

 

JMO.

If Tyrod’s 4 picks 2 weren’t his fault. That’s a terrible argument. 

3 minutes ago, The Big Cat said:

 

Actually 81 of 150 respondents believe Petetman should have started.

54% of this place is on the spectrum. I’ve said that we are one of the least educated fan bases in the world, this solidifies it.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[transplantbillsfan]

Hindsight is 20/20... but Taylor... obviously.

[K-9]

10 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

I thought Rivers was getting benched when I saw this thread 

Exactly how I read it, too.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

14 hours ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

The Chargers coaching decision debate has come back again now that it has become relevant in playoffs. Again I am fighting the ludicrous notion that Peterman should have started. Please give me your honest opinion, as I'd like to know if I am in the minority and stop this crusade. And I sincerely apologize if I harp on it too much, I believe my "opinion" is fact and love to argue as such. 

 

We still get handled, don't forget we got crushed the two previous weeks and is the reason Tyrod got benched. Also he played the second half and wasn't good there either.

 

Tyrod is just not good enough and even if we make the playoffs he still gets replaced next year.

 

 

The loss that will come back to haunt us is the Carolina game, just one catch away.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

If Tyrod’s 4 picks 2 weren’t his fault. That’s a terrible argument. 

54% of this place is on the spectrum. I’ve said that we are one of the least educated fan bases in the world, this solidifies it.

 

Lol

 

you arrogant twat. 

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

McD wanted to win, If anyone is to be blamed it should be Taylor with horrid outings against the Jets and Saints. The Chargers defense would've done the same thing the Jets defense did only better . Lynn knows Taylor's weaknesses like the back of his hand. I think it's a 50/50 call but Taylor should've started, not because he was the better QB but because you just don't start a rookie QB against the best D-Line in the NFL. The bottom line is Taylor's horrid play and Lynn knowledge of Taylor's weaknesses played a big role in him being benched. I'm sure Peterman was also pushing Taylor in practice sessions. I don't blame McD for starting Peterman but it was not fair to Peterman to start him vs the Chargers under those circumstances.

[Doc Brown]

A majority on this board were for Peterman's start (including me) after being destroyed two weeks in a row.  I was tired of the three on offense tiring out our defense and thought Taylor was holding on to the ball too long.  I was completely wrong, but I did say in the gameday thread to pull him after the 2nd pick as I had no idea how dominant the Chargers d-line was.

[NewEra]

7 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

With regard to McDermott's decsiom making you somehow think he's above reproach because he's the HC?  Not even as we have seen with both personnel and in game decisions.  Mentioning Tom Brady, DeShaun Watson, Draymond Green, and Zach Levine in a discussion about this particular rookie QB is puuzzling since none have a darned thing to do with any assessment of what Peterman brings to the table as an NFL prospect.   It's a farcical  way of talking about him as he has his own set of strengths and weaknesses that make him who he is.  You want to hold out hope that he'll develop into something more beyond what I see in him, then that's up to you. 

 

How Peterson did against the Colts is pretty much a throwaway given the conditions under which the game was played.  Now with regard to Tyrod, I'm not looking for any real improvement because he is who and what he is.  I like many others am hoping for the BIlls to draft a potential franchise QB, but that's for the seasons ahead.  In the interim of what's left in the 2017 he remains the best QB on this current team as I have posted many times. All of this silliness about man crushes and CoT is a bunch on nonsense. 

 

I’m saying that most people on this earth would trust him over you regarding a football decision.  You’ve never been in control of an nfl team and will never be.  Hence it being an easy decision.  Yes, coaches can be wrong and fans can be correct, but the fact that he actually coaches Peterman and Taylor, allows me to side with the coach over couch guy.  There is something he knows, that you don’t know.  That would be WHY he chose to bench tyrod.  I don’t know why, but he does and that’s good enough for me at this point.  8-6 with pretty crappy qb and a defense that disappeared for half the season.  Not a bad first year.  4-12 was my prediction before the season.  What was yours?

 

 

all of those players are completely relevant to this conversation.  You’re just being pig headed and refuse to see it, as expected.  Your evaluation of Peterman means zero in the greater scheme of things.  McD wasn’t privy to 26cb scouting notes apparently. 

 

 

Peterman thorwing perfect passes in that weather means zero.  Another, as expected. 

 

 

I dont think there are many here that think Peterman is going to be our long term qb.  It’s just we don’t know what we have in him yet, while everyone knows what we have in Tyrod.    You already knew what Peterman was due to your diligent scouting.  The rest of us plebs will have to watch him play in the nfl in order to make that realization.  

[Kirby Jackson]

2 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

Lol

 

you arrogant twat. 

I mean this wasn’t all that complicated. This wasn’t finding the cure for cancer and then looking down upon those that couldn’t find the cure. This was more like “should we stick our hands in the fire or not?”

 

The only people in the world that thought that it was a good idea were some Bills fans and Rick Dennison. It was an EPIC failure and those that supported it came out looking like morons. This really doesn’t fly in the face of my assertion that our fan base isn’t knowledgeable. We aren’t. 

 

There really is no reason for “I told you so” in this case. “Should Peterman have started” is like asking “is ice cold?” You don’t need to dance in the end zone for identifying that ice, is in fact, cold. 

 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[Dr.Sack]

Tyrod is a bottom 1/3 starter. Peterman is a 3rd string QB. 

[ChasBB]

It's real easy to point at ONE thing throughout the course of the season that could have change a loss to a win.  At the time, the decision was the correct decision.  It didn't work out, but that doesn't mean it was the wrong decision - even in hind sight.  If DiMarco doesn't treat the football like it's a volleyball, maybe that game unfolds completely differently.  There should not be any more emphasis on the Chargers loss over any other loss and every loss can be reviewed and missed opportunities found.  Go Bills and win the last 2 regular season games - and maybe we can skip having this conversation!

Edited December 24, 2017 by ChasBB

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I mean this wasn’t all that complicated. This wasn’t finding the cure for cancer and then looking down upon those that couldn’t find the cure. This was more like “should we stick our hands in the fire or not?”

 

The only people in the world that thought that it was a good idea were some Bills fans and Rick Dennison. It was an EPIC failure and those that supported it came out looking like morons. This really doesn’t fly in the face of my assertion that our fan base isn’t knowledgeable. We aren’t. 

 

There really is no reason for “I told you so” in this case. “Should Peterman have started” is like asking “is ice cold?” You don’t need to dance in the end zone for identifying that ice, is in fact, cold. 

 

 

Who’s on the spectrum? The guy who loves the play of an RB pretending to be a QB or the people who are holding out hope that the guy on the bench might be better?

[Chandler#81]

19 hours ago, GG said:

And here I'm thinking the thread is about Lynn benching Rivers and will start Jones.

 

I can dream.

Certainly would have made this worthwhile..

[Kirby Jackson]

12 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Who’s on the spectrum? The guy who loves the play of an RB pretending to be a QB or the people who are holding out hope that the guy on the bench might be better?

The people that thought Peterman should start. There are currently 91 of them that have identified themselves.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

The people that thought Peterman should start. There are currently 91 of them that have identified themselves.

 

Not surprisingly you’re wrong again. You’re also wrong if you believe they would have beaten LA with the RB under center. 

[Kirby Jackson]

7 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Not surprisingly you’re wrong again. You’re also wrong if you believe they would have beaten LA with the RB under center. 

If I thought that we would win EVERY game that Tyrod started I would have been right 22 times and wrong 19. Of course it’s asinine to think that the Bills win every time, but I would still be right more often than I am wrong. 

 

Do you know the record of teams that have had a QB throw 5 INTs in a half since the merger? It’s 0-1 if you include that game.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

5 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

If I thought that we would win EVERY game that Tyrod started I would have been right 22 times and wrong 19. Of course it’s asinine to think that the Bills won every time, but I would still be right more often than I am wrong. 

 

Do you know the record of teams that have had a QB throw 5 INTs in a half since the merger? It’s 0-1 if you include that game.

 

Classic buffalo mentality on display here. Being right three more times than you’re wrong is good and if you disagree with that, you’re an autist. Do better Kirby. This ain’t baseball.

Edited December 24, 2017 by joesixpack

[26CornerBlitz]

2 hours ago, NewEra said:

 

I’m saying that most people on this earth would trust him over you regarding a football decision.  You’ve never been in control of an nfl team and will never be.  Hence it being an easy decision.  Yes, coaches can be wrong and fans can be correct, but the fact that he actually coaches Peterman and Taylor, allows me to side with the coach over couch guy.  There is something he knows, that you don’t know.  That would be WHY he chose to bench tyrod.  I don’t know why, but he does and that’s good enough for me at this point.  8-6 with pretty crappy qb and a defense that disappeared for half the season.  Not a bad first year.  4-12 was my prediction before the season.  What was yours?

 

 

all of those players are completely relevant to this conversation.  You’re just being pig headed and refuse to see it, as expected.  Your evaluation of Peterman means zero in the greater scheme of things.  McD wasn’t privy to 26cb scouting notes apparently. 

 

 

Peterman thorwing perfect passes in that weather means zero.  Another, as expected. 

 

 

I dont think there are many here that think Peterman is going to be our long term qb.  It’s just we don’t know what we have in him yet, while everyone knows what we have in Tyrod.    You already knew what Peterman was due to your diligent scouting.  The rest of us plebs will have to watch him play in the nfl in order to make that realization.  

 

Just like most people should have trusted Dick Jauron, Chan Gailey,  or Rex Ryan?  What a specious and weak argument.

 

Pig headed?  Your mentioning other names is BS and I'm just not falling for your weak, flawed line of reasoning where you try to connect the success of others from different sports  no less to give you hope for Peterman.  You don't like where I stand? Fine. But don't expect me to fall for your candy coated thinking just because you called me a name. 

[Kirby Jackson]

43 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Classic buffalo mentality on display here. Being right three more times than you’re wrong is good and if you disagree with that, you’re an autist. Do better Kirby.

The “classic Buffalo mentality” of a guy that hasn’t lived in Buffalo in over a decade? ?

 

The Bills starters since Bledsoe:

Tyrod - 22-19

Peterman - 1-1

EJ - 6-11

Orton - 7-5

Fitz - 20-33

Thad Lewis - 2-3

Jeff Tuel - 0-1

Brian Brohm - 0-2

Trent Edwards - 14-18

Losman - 10-23

Holcomb - 4-4

Bledsoe - 23-25

 

I never said “we are all set.” However, it’s reasonable to believe that a franchise with that history shouldn’t be pulling a decent starter for a 5th round rookie that completed half of his preseason passes (he’s completed 49% in the regular season to his guys and 10.2% to the opposing guys). 

 

I am not going to apologize that I want this team to go to the playoffs. I’m not going to apologize that I am okay with Tyrod until a BETTER option comes along.

 

Buffalo fans always want what’s next, I only want that if it’s better. I never thought (and still don’t think) that this particular 5th round rookie would get over 40 NFL starts and win more than half of them. He wasn’t (and isn’t) some star in waiting. He got the call and failed miserably. 

 

Go dig up the pre-draft scouting reports that Bandit, Gunner and Blokes did on Peterman. They watched him the closest and liked him the least (I don’t remember where Bandit stood on him). 

Edited December 24, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[fansince88]

@PetermanThrew5Picks, how do you feel about that time in the Saints game that TT took the sack for a 15yd loss instead of throw the ball away. I would really love to glean from your fields of wisdom!

2 hours ago, Dr.Sack said:

Tyrod is a bottom 1/3 starter. Peterman is a 3rd string QB. 

Actually, Peterman has done well in backup.

Some pretty good names on this list. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_int_single_game.htm

Brett with 8int in a game. Joe Ferguson with 5. 

[Big Gun]

11 hours ago, twoandfourteen said:

No one is mentioning Peterman's fumble that was run back for a TD against the Chargers. 

 

That never would have happened if Tyrod had started!

 

McDermott is an idiot! 

 

 

sarcsm?

 

That was Tyrod that fumbled and it was returned for a TD, not Peterman. 

Edited December 24, 2017 by PeterGriffin

[Bing Bong]

1 hour ago, fansince88 said:

@PetermanThrew5Picks, how do you feel about that time in the Saints game that TT took the sack for a 15yd loss instead of throw the ball away. I would really love to glean from your fields of wisdom!

Actually, Peterman has done well in backup.

Some pretty good names on this list. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_int_single_game.htm

Brett with 8int in a game. Joe Ferguson with 5. 

Sorry guys, just confused as to who makes a better start, Tyrod, or a 5 pick machine. The board has spoken.

 

[Albwan]

Peterman all day. A win vs cincy, no, or jets  has the bills in the playoffs.

[NewEra]

3 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Just like most people should have trusted Dick Jauron, Chan Gailey,  or Rex Ryan?  What a specious and weak argument.

 

Pig headed?  Your mentioning other names is BS and I'm just not falling for your weak, flawed line of reasoning where you try to connect the success of others from different sports  no less to give you hope for Peterman.  You don't like where I stand? Fine. But don't expect me to fall for your candy coated thinking just because you called me a name. 

 

 

I didn’t call you a name.  I said you were being pig headed.  

 

 

   18 hours ago,  26CornerBlitz said: 

Peterman was not an unknown.  Based on watching his college career and what I saw in preseason, I said he was a project with long term backup potential.  He does not impress me at all as the Bills' potential future starting for a number of reasons.  Putting him in against the Chargers was among the worst decisions I have ever seen a Bills' HC make. 

 

My my problem lies here.  Peterman wasn’t an unknown because you saw him play in college and preseason?  Do you sit in the qb room for meetings and break down the game tape and see what the coaches are telling the QBs to look for and how they handle specific situations?  Do you go to practice every day and see these guys go through progressions?  Do you know which tyrod tendencies drive the coaching crazy?  Do you see how many open targets the qb misses.  Do you know what read each receiver is?  There’s a lot more to it than watching the guy play in college and preseason (Peterman looked way better than TT in preseason btw).  McD and Dennison see all of the above and they also see our offense lead the league in 3 and outs prior to the benching.  Leading the league in 3 and outs,......a stat that hurts every aspect of the team.  We hadn’t scored ONE TD in the first quarter ALL SEASON at that point.  There were many reasons tyrod was benched......the only reason not to bench him being that 26cb and other fans have seen Peterman play in college and thought he was a project with long term backup potential.  Just like Tom Brady.  Yes, I realize that there’s one Tom Brady, but there are many players that have turned out to be much much better than originally evaluated.  I’m sure you’ve been wrong before regarding a players potential.

 

 

 

I understand why you feel this way and I agree to disagree.  I’d just rather have my coach try and fix a problem rather than just sweeping it under the rug and pretending it isn’t there.  The qb postion has held us back this season in this system.  They made changes during the bye week to help TT.  While it helped vs some bad defenses, the last couple of weeks before the change was made, we had regressed again.  The saints were able to contain tyrod in the pocket and they made him useless. Completely useless.   Dusting him under the rug for another week would’ve been throwing in the towel on the season in my opinion.  His bad play was the reason he was pulled.  Blame the coach because the qb was spiraling downward if you must.  I’d rather hold the qb accountable for his play.  How a player handles getting benched and how they battle back from the adversity can often help Kickstart a team.  Especially at the qb postion. 

 

 

 

[CircleTheWagons99]

If people are morons for wanting Peterman to start, then the TT lovers must be mentally insane for wanting to continue to see that. 

[26CornerBlitz]

6 minutes ago, NewEra said:

 

 

I didn’t call you a name.  I said you were being pig headed.  

 

 

   18 hours ago,  26CornerBlitz said: 

Peterman was not an unknown.  Based on watching his college career and what I saw in preseason, I said he was a project with long term backup potential.  He does not impress me at all as the Bills' potential future starting for a number of reasons.  Putting him in against the Chargers was among the worst decisions I have ever seen a Bills' HC make. 

 

My my problem lies here.  Peterman wasn’t an unknown because you saw him play in college and preseason?  Do you sit in the qb room for meetings and break down the game tape and see what the coaches are telling the QBs to look for and how they handle specific situations?  Do you go to practice every day and see these guys go through progressions?  Do you know which tyrod tendencies drive the coaching crazy?  Do you see how many open targets the qb misses.  Do you know what read each receiver is?  There’s a lot more to it than watching the guy play in college and preseason (Peterman looked way better than TT in preseason btw).  McD and Dennison see all of the above and they also see our offense lead the league in 3 and outs prior to the benching.  Leading the league in 3 and outs,......a stat that hurts every aspect of the team.  We hadn’t scored ONE TD in the first quarter ALL SEASON at that point.  There were many reasons tyrod was benched......the only reason not to bench him being that 26cb and other fans have seen Peterman play in college and thought he was a project with long term backup potential.  Just like Tom Brady.  Yes, I realize that there’s one Tom Brady, but there are many players that have turned out to be much much better than originally evaluated.  I’m sure you’ve been wrong before regarding a players potential.

 

 

 

I understand why you feel this way and I agree to disagree.  I’d just rather have my coach try and fix a problem rather than just sweeping it under the rug and pretending it isn’t there.  The qb postion has held us back this season in this system.  They made changes during the bye week to help TT.  While it helped vs some bad defenses, the last couple of weeks before the change was made, we had regressed again.  The saints were able to contain tyrod in the pocket and they made him useless. Completely useless.   Dusting him under the rug for another week would’ve been throwing in the towel on the season in my opinion.  His bad play was the reason he was pulled.  Blame the coach because the qb was spiraling downward if you must.  I’d rather hold the qb accountable for his play.  How a player handles getting benched and how they battle back from the adversity can often help Kickstart a team.  Especially at the qb postion. 

 

Peterman looked average at best in preseason.  He showed himself to have spotty accuracy and no poise under pressure.  He got a chance to start and showed he was completely ill-prepared to meet the challenge.   You can keep trying to lean on how Tom Brady turned out as hope for him, but it has nothing to do with this situation.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

21 minutes ago, CircleTheWagons99 said:

If people are morons for wanting Peterman to start, then the TT lovers must be mentally insane for wanting to continue to see that. 

Tis the season to be jolly. Easy fellas. 

 

To reiterate.   The team needed a kick in the ass after 3 horrible games.  

McD did just that.  TT did play a little better wrt his decisiveness.  

 

Whats that saying 

 

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. 

[What a Tuel]

6 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I mean this wasn’t all that complicated. This wasn’t finding the cure for cancer and then looking down upon those that couldn’t find the cure. This was more like “should we stick our hands in the fire or not?”

 

The only people in the world that thought that it was a good idea were some Bills fans and Rick Dennison. It was an EPIC failure and those that supported it came out looking like morons. This really doesn’t fly in the face of my assertion that our fan base isn’t knowledgeable. We aren’t. 

 

There really is no reason for “I told you so” in this case. “Should Peterman have started” is like asking “is ice cold?” You don’t need to dance in the end zone for identifying that ice, is in fact, cold. 

 

 

Tyrod was on a slide. He isn't the answer and we needed to know what we had in Peterman. Probably not the most opportune time to start Peterman, but that was because of the opponent, not because it didn't need to be done. 

 

Tyrod was just as awful as Peterman, in both the Jets, and Saints games.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

26CB has hated NP from day one and can’t accept that people need to see a player play a full season or 2 to pass a reasonable assessment. 

 

Tyrod has had 3 years to prove he can be that guy. 

 

And to many he has failed to prove he IS that guy.  

Edited December 24, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan

[CardinalScotts]

honestly the way we were playing at the time, there isnt a qb on this roster or any other that would have given us a chance  to win that game. Its a talk radio topic along with should Pete Rose be in the hall of fame. Tyrod has played better since the benching I view it as benching helped

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, What a Tuel said:

 

Tyrod was on a slide. He isn't the answer and we needed to know what we had in Peterman. Probably not the most opportune time to start Peterman, but that was because of the opponent, not because it didn't need to be done. 

 

Tyrod was just as awful as Peterman, in both the Jets, and Saints games.

 

Tyrod was horrid in Saint's game I agree, but not against the Jets.  To equate Peterman's historically bad 5 INT first half performance with either is laughable.