KingRex Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 or so dubs ESPN PTI in their assessment of McDermott's rookie year as an HC! I have to admit, but these guys are right in their judgment. Starting a 5th round rookie QB for a team in playoff convention really does rank among one of the stupidest coaching decisions in NFL history (it was not only a bad move in terms of short-term goals of giving your team the best chance to compete this year, but it was also an unprecedented move in terms of sensible young player development). However, all is forgiven by the team making the playoffs! I'm just happy the players and Tyrod kept their eye on the prize and focused on simply winning ball games when the "process" apparently called for abandoning the QB that brung you where you are and for pursuing a player development strategy which expected a league consensus 5th round drafted rookie to lead his team to glory. In a game where self-confidence is key, I simply hope McDermoot has not ruined the seemingly talented NP by throwing him to the sharks. Nevertheless the real deal here is despite this McD/and assume Beane screw-up just win baby. Nobody's perfect and at least for a week we are cruising! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Better known as the Nathan Peterman Error. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo2218 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Yeah starting Peterman really decresed the Bills chances of winning against a hot San Diego team on the road. Given how Taylor played against the Saints the week before, it's possible he could have been worse against the Chargers 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodman19 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 I am of the opinion that had Tyrod started against the hot Chargers defense that week, Peterman would have been the Chiefs game and probably retained the job for the rest of the season. 11 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 1 minute ago, Woodman19 said: I am of the opinion that had Tyrod started against the hot Chargers defense that week, Peterman would have been the Chiefs game and probably retained the job for the rest of the season. That is distinctly possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 6 minutes ago, KingRex said: or so dubs ESPN PTI in their assessment of McDermott's rookie year as an HC! I have to admit, but these guys are right in their judgment. Starting a 5th round rookie QB for a team in playoff convention really does rank among one of the stupidest coaching decisions in NFL history (it was not only a bad move in terms of short-term goals of giving your team the best chance to compete this year, but it was also an unprecedented move in terms of sensible young player development). However, all is forgiven by the team making the playoffs! I'm just happy the players and Tyrod kept their eye on the prize and focused on simply winning ball games when the "process" apparently called for abandoning the QB that brung you where you are and for pursuing a player development strategy which expected a league consensus 5th round drafted rookie to lead his team to glory. In a game where self-confidence is key, I simply hope McDermoot has not ruined the seemingly talented NP by throwing him to the sharks. Nevertheless the real deal here is despite this McD/and assume Beane screw-up just win baby. Nobody's perfect and at least for a week we are cruising! 56 yards passing in the Modern NFL. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobonators Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 The mistake to start Peterman, while certainly a mistake, is wildly overblown. The offense was pretty bad in the games leading up to that Chargers game. The team was looking for a spark. My spark wouldnt have been to bench TT. It wouldve been to fire castillo and Rico at the same time and call plays based off of a Madden simulation; cant do any worse than Rico’s in-game adjustments and playcalling thats for sure. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Assuming that the Bills would have won with Taylor against the Chargers is a mistake. The Bills were hot at the start of the season and then started drinking their own cool-aid. The Chargers had just started their run and where hot. They continued that throughout the season. In Hindsight this was the best decision he could have made throughout hte year. He benched his starting QB basically telling everyone that nobody is untouchable. It's not a coincidence that suddently the Bills start to win games again. you say it's stupid. I say it was smart. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy KGB Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, Woodman19 said: I am of the opinion that had Tyrod started against the hot Chargers defense that week, Peterman would have been the Chiefs game and probably retained the job for the rest of the season. I hope coach runs all future decisions through 26cb and petermanthrew5picks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Just now, kota said: Assuming that the Bills would have won with Taylor against the Chargers is a mistake. The Bills were hot at the start of the season and then started drinking their own cool-aid. The Chargers had just started their run and where hot. They continued that throughout the season. In Hindsight this was the best decision he could have made throughout hte year. He benched his starting QB basically telling everyone that nobody is untouchable. It's not a coincidence that suddently the Bills start to win games again. you say it's stupid. I say it was smart. Yep your earn it cliche will fall very stale on a team quick if you just keep trotting out a QB that continues to stuggle ans the week before posted a whopping 56 yards passing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingRex Posted January 2, 2018 Author Share Posted January 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, buffalo2218 said: Yeah starting Peterman really decresed the Bills chances of winning against a hot San Diego team on the road. Given how Taylor played against the Saints the week before, it's possible he could have been worse against the Chargers The problem was it was a stupid player development strategy. There is a good reason why virtually all rookies do not play unless forced by injury. They are not ready. At the very least, McD should have waited until late in the week to officially announce the switch as SD's D would have prepared for tyrod rather than working to disguise coverages to rape a rookie. Whether your focus was the present or the future, this was a bad move poorly done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 The real mistake was bringing Tyrod back. We could have easily done better for less. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrbojanglezs Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 There was never a Peterman era. He started 1 game only because tyrod was playing poorly. Tyrod era will be done very soon. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaviorPeterman Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 5 minutes ago, Woodman19 said: I am of the opinion that had Tyrod started against the hot Chargers defense that week, Peterman would have been the Chiefs game and probably retained the job for the rest of the season. I still think we should have stuck with NP even after the Chargers debacle, we'd be no worse than where we are right now with TT and who knows we might have found a way to upset the Pats at home with him starting. Either way, despite all the hate and false narratives...NP is still 1-1 as an NFL starter despite both games being less than ideal circumstances (especially the blizzard game against the Colts). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobonators Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 1 minute ago, KingRex said: The problem was it was a stupid player development strategy. There is a good reason why virtually all rookies do not play unless forced by injury. They are not ready. At the very least, McD should have waited until late in the week to officially announce the switch as SD's D would have prepared for tyrod rather than working to disguise coverages to rape a rookie. Whether your focus was the present or the future, this was a bad move poorly done. Rico thought he was ready. Blame him. Anything with the offense, the buck stops with Rico. Hes a dumpster fire without Kubiak holding his hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guy In Pants Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 They benched a struggling QB for another one. Peterman had a rough go of it. It’s not like the defense had anything other than crowding the line of scrimmage to plan for. It’s all they had to plan for all year. Stop McCoy and pressure the QB. Not hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo2218 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Just now, KingRex said: The problem was it was a stupid player development strategy. There is a good reason why virtually all rookies do not play unless forced by injury. They are not ready. At the very least, McD should have waited until late in the week to officially announce the switch as SD's D would have prepared for tyrod rather than working to disguise coverages to rape a rookie. Whether your focus was the present or the future, this was a bad move poorly done. I look at it more like McDermott felt Taylor needed to take a step back after his horrendous performance against the Saints. For all we know it worked just fine considering what happened after SD 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaviorPeterman Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Just now, Mrbojanglezs said: There was never a Peterman era. He started 1 game only because tyrod was playing poorly. Tyrod era will be done very soon. Yes and that's when the true Peterman era will begin. Despite all the talk of trading up for a franchise QB, I still get the sense that Beane and McD love NP and will build around him in the offseason. This doesn't mean we won't bring in another veteran or draft another QB in the mid rounds though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Kid still has a future in my opinion.......Peterman is gonna be in the league for a while and maybe as the spot starter/good backup for this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, Mrbojanglezs said: There was never a Peterman era. He started 1 game only because tyrod was playing poorly. Tyrod era will be done very soon. Yep....this can end the thread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo2218 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 1 minute ago, SaviorPeterman said: Yes and that's when the true Peterman era will begin. Despite all the talk of trading up for a franchise QB, I still get the sense that Beane and McD love NP and will build around him in the offseason. This doesn't mean we won't bring in another veteran or draft another QB in the mid rounds though. I seriously doubt if the Bills have a chance to get one of these guys in the draft, they'd pass them up just to build around Peterman. Peterman has a very long way to go in terms of development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 13 minutes ago, buffalo2218 said: Yeah starting Peterman really decresed the Bills chances of winning against a hot San Diego team on the road. Given how Taylor played against the Saints the week before, it's possible he could have been worse against the Chargers The entire team played better in the second half with Taylor under center. I don't think that's a coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 The Peterman era? When did that happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo2218 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Just now, Rocky Landing said: The entire team played better in the second half with Taylor under center. I don't think that's a coincidence. What was the score in the second half? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 5 minutes ago, KingRex said: The problem was it was a stupid player development strategy. There is a good reason why virtually all rookies do not play unless forced by injury. They are not ready. At the very least, McD should have waited until late in the week to officially announce the switch as SD's D would have prepared for tyrod rather than working to disguise coverages to rape a rookie. Whether your focus was the present or the future, this was a bad move poorly done. Not as much today. More rookies are starting today. https://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/andrew-luck-robert-griffin-iii-why-more-rookie-qbs-are-starting-wednesdays-with-billick-091212 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LABILLBACKER Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 8 minutes ago, bobobonators said: The mistake to start Peterman, while certainly a mistake, is wildly overblown. The offense was pretty bad in the games leading up to that Chargers game. The team was looking for a spark. My spark wouldnt have been to bench TT. It wouldve been to fire castillo and Rico at the same time and call plays based off of a Madden simulation; cant do any worse than Rico’s in-game adjustments and playcalling thats for sure. McD rolling the dice for 1 game and sending Peterman to the wolves on the road was hardly the worst thing our team did this year. Keeping Dennison, Castillo, Tolbert and Ducasse is much more heinous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 1 minute ago, buffalo2218 said: What was the score in the second half? 17-17 http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2017111907/2017/REG11/bills@chargers?icampaign=GC_schedule_rr#menu=gameinfo&tab=recap 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 1 minute ago, Rocky Landing said: The entire team played better in the second half with Taylor under center. I don't think that's a coincidence. I have been trying to tell people this for a while now. Starting Nate was a kick in the ass message to get your asses moving ore be ready to be benched/ cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Finkel Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 7 minutes ago, The_Dude said: The real mistake was bringing Tyrod back. We could have easily done better for less. 7 minutes ago, The_Dude said: The real mistake was bringing Tyrod back. We could have easily done better for less. Absolutely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanbillsfan2206 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 I was all about Peterman starting. I even tried ordering his jersey immediately after the announcement. Glad that order didn’t go through.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo2218 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said: The entire team played better in the second half with Taylor under center. I don't think that's a coincidence. Geez dude, the Chargers were up 37-7 at the start of the second half, did the Bills play better or did the Chargers play soft with a huge lead? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodman19 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 The Irony is that Peterman will be here long after Tyrod is gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills757 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 19 minutes ago, buffalo2218 said: Yeah starting Peterman really decresed the Bills chances of winning against a hot San Diego team on the road. Given how Taylor played against the Saints the week before, it's possible he could have been worse against the Chargers A guy who rarely throws INT's could do worse than 5 picks in one half? Um...okay, yea, right. I'm not sure Taylor could've been worse if he tried. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Just now, buffalo2218 said: Geez dude, the Chargers were up 37-7 at the start of the second half, did the Bills play better or did the Chargers play soft with a huge lead? There's really no question in my mind. They played better on both sides of the ball in the second half, especially the offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffalo2218 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Just now, Bills757 said: A guy who rarely throws INT's could do worse than 5 picks in one half? Um...okay, yea, right. I'm not sure Taylor could've been worse if he tried. As opposed to Taylor's performance against the Saints? Just now, Rocky Landing said: There's really no question in my mind. They played better on both sides of the ball in the second half, especially the offense. Of course they did if the Chargers let off the gas with a 30 point lead 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaviorPeterman Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 1 minute ago, Woodman19 said: The Irony is that Peterman will be here long after Tyrod is gone. Yes and hopefully for many years to come. A lot of folks obviously aren't going to be happy when he's the starter next year..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 1 minute ago, Woodman19 said: The Irony is that Peterman will be here long after Tyrod is gone. This seems to be the conventional wisdom, but I'm not so sure. If we draft a QB high, which seems likely, would it be better to have Taylor, whichever vet journeyman is available, or Peterman/Webb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills757 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 1 minute ago, buffalo2218 said: As opposed to Taylor's performance against the Saints? Of course they did if the Chargers let off the gas with a 30 point lead So one of the worst halves in NFL history and Taylor would do worse? You're reaching....a lot. In all seriousness, McD could've picked a different team to have Peterman start. The Chargers' pass rush was brutal and not a good matchup for Peterman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suorangefan4 Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Is the entire media so ignorant to the fact that Nathan Peterman won against the Colts afterwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Things Posted January 2, 2018 Share Posted January 2, 2018 Bollocks. This is just hindsight being 20/20. Hot-Rod was playing uninspired, crappy football at the time and the coaching staff wanted to see what their other QB could do. I had no problem with them doing that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts