The End of the Nathan Peterman Era...

[twoandfourteen]

43 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

It sounds like you are blaming the near loss on our Special Teams specialist/back up WR? Shouldn't we blame Peterman for having the bright idea to dive headfirst into the defense with no back up QB on the roster?

 

100% on him. Even a rookie has to know better than this. 

 

 

[Royale with Cheese]

2 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Actually that is 31st in passing attempts and 6th in rushing attempts......  That pretty much tells you that other teams are prepped for rushes.....

 

Balanced in the NFL is closer to 55%......  Anomalies would be a team like Jacksonville, which had 6-7 blowouts......

 

Keep on posting stoopid comments....

 

What do you mean "actually"?  The numbers I put up are factual.  Are you arguing statistical facts?

You're right....we didn't throw the ball....except 476 times.

 

Other teams stacked the box against us because we don't throw it well.  Are you too ignorant to think that if we were successful throwing the ball, we would have done it more?

 

If you want an example of stupid comments....look at the first post in this thread.  You made an incredible amount of them here.  

 

 

[RuntheDamnBall]

18 hours ago, suorangefan4 said:

 

You really think the Chargers were playing with even half the intensity in the second half as they were the first? TT had a ton of time to throw in the second half, Peterman was getting the entire pocket collapsed in about a second most plays.

 

 

That might have had a lot to do with their need to respect TT's legs.

[billieve420]

I think what is clear is that Tyrod is not a fit in this offense. If Dennison stays Tyrod has to go. Tyrod is an athlete playing QB who looked decent in the Roman/Lynn offense when guys were healthy and on the field.

 

The only way to sell that to a fan base that will get its first taste of the playoffs in 17 yrs is to either overpay for Cousins who I think is good not great. It is concerning when your own coach isn't singing your praises. Or draft a QB in the 1st and have him ready to go game 1 next year. Fans may be willing to stomach a losing season in the name of progress.

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/21942806/washington-redskins-coach-jay-gruden-offers-lukewarm-praise-qb-kirk-cousins

 

I think it is pretty impressive we won 9 games despite a numbers of holes on both sides of the ball. I attribute that to the coaching staff. Both offensive and defensive lines need to be rebuilt. An athletic MLB who can cover and play the run is a huge need as well. If the right QB is available when we draft go get him but I would be hesitant to mortgage the future for any of the guys coming out this year.

[Scott7975]

1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Surely you don't mean to call a Fist time First year head coach that broke Buffalo Bills records all throughout  September and put together a team that reached the playoffs a clown? 

No QB McClown. I like McD even if I don't agree with some of the things he does. 

[twoandfourteen]

28 minutes ago, RuntheDamnBall said:

That might have had a lot to do with their need to respect TT's legs.

 

Or what? He might scramble for several 6 or 8 yard gains? 

 

Great, him running is a slow and inefficient way to move the ball downfield. If I'm a DC, I welcome Tyrod to run. It's no where near as dangerous as a QB who can effectively attack through the air. 

 

Publicly of course, I'd have to say how important it is to watch out for Taylor scrambling, blah, blah, blah. But I know that him scrambling means he's given up on the pass, a much more efficient and effective way to move the ball, and that is a-ok with me.

So in private, I'm like "RUN, TYROD, RUN!"

[BillsFan130]

1 hour ago, twoandfourteen said:

 

Was Roethlisberger ready for the Jaguars game? He threw 5 INTs too. 

 

I agree with you -- It's highly unlikely, considering his resume. Dude probably just had a really bad day at the office. Worst game of the 2017 NFL season by a QB.

 

Was Peterman ready? Considering he demonstrated reasonable rookie proficiency and competence at the position in his limited mop-up duty, I don't see any evidence that anyone can say with absolute certainty that the kid was going to be a disaster. Had he gone into the Saints game and looked like Matt Leinart in the preseason a few years ago, then you'd definitely have a case. But he didn't. He actually looked pretty good in garbage time. Put up better numbers in 5 minutes than Taylor did over the course of the previous 55 minutes. Of course, it was against a Saints defense that had mailed it in, but at that point of the season, Taylor had put the Bills into desperation mode at the position. So it was better than nothing. Taylor literally gave them no other choice but to start someone else at QB.

 

 

Your argument concerning Peterman's "readiness" is further weakened by the kid's performance against the Colts. There was a situation where a rookie QB could absolutely be expected to fall apart -- playing a game in never-before-seen, historically bad weather conditions, further compounded by his previous start against the Chargers, and he went in there and looked every bit the part of an NFL QB, especially on the TD throw to Benjamin. 

 

So to claim that McDermott is an unbelievable idiot because it was clearly obvious to everyone in the world that Peterman was going to throw 5 INTs against the Chargers is simply not true. 

 

And it's even dumber to use that as some kind of support for keeping Taylor as the starter, since he was primarily responsible for putting the team in such a dire situation on offense. 

Yes I would say a 14 year vet was ready and prepared, he just had a bad game. He’s seen ever single defence and knows what coordinators want to do to him.

 

Hard to judge Petermans game against the colts.

 

Number 1, the Colts have the worst pass defence in Football 

 

Number 2, that game was a blizzard and any game plan they had on Peterman goes out the window because of the conditions.

 

There really isn’t an argument about that game against LA. He was way over his head against a tough defence on the road.

 

Im really not sure how you can state otherwise. He arguably had the worst half for a QB in NFL history 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

37 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

No QB McClown. I like McD even if I don't agree with some of the things he does. 

   My bad.   Sorry.  

 

to your comment  

[twoandfourteen]

13 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:

Yes I would say a 14 year vet was ready and prepared, he just had a bad game. He’s seen ever single defence and knows what coordinators want to do to him.

 

Hard to judge Petermans game against the colts.

 

Number 1, the Colts have the worst pass defence in Football 

 

Number 2, that game was a blizzard and any game plan they had on Peterman goes out the window because of the conditions.

 

There really isn’t an argument about that game against LA. He was way over his head against a tough defence on the road.

 

Im really not sure how you can state otherwise. He arguably had the worst half for a QB in NFL history 

 

So to be clear here -- you are arguing that 5th round rookie QB, Nathan Peterman in his first NFL start has less of a margin of error than 14 year veteran, future HOF QB, Ben Roethlisberger does? 

 

You are making the case that people should be MORE critical of the rookie in his first start and LESS critical of the future HOFer in his 190th start. Because if Peterman's start was the "worst in NFL history", then what was Roethlisberger's?

 

Because they both threw 5 INTs in a single game.

 

Roethlisberger had two run back for TDs in the span of three minutes. Oh, and he was at home. 

 

I don't know. If you ask me, an all-time great should be held to a higher standard and the rookie should be given a little slack. 

 

 

Oh, and as for your Colts game comment -- the kid got the job done while he was in the game. That's all anyone could have wanted and expected from him. He gets bonus points for doing it under ridiculous circumstances, too. Same thing goes for Joe Webb in that one, too. Those two backups kept things together well enough and made enough plays at the position while dealing with something never-before-seen, and came out with a win. A win that, by the way, helped to put them in place to play this weekend. 

 

So get lost with the "well, it was a bad pass defense".... who cares? It was an epic blizzard! Everything went out the window that day and it came down to who was able to do their job in the conditions. Peterman and Webb get full credit for pulling that one off. 

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by twoandfourteen

[BillsFan130]

1 minute ago, twoandfourteen said:

 

So to be clear here -- you are arguing that 5th round rookie QB, Nathan Peterman in his first NFL start has less of a margin of error than 14 year veteran, future HOF QB, Ben Roethlisberger does? 

 

You are making the case that people should be MORE critical of the rookie in his first start and LESS critical of the future HOFer in his 190th start. Because if Peterman's start was the "worst in NFL history", then what was Roethlisberger's?

 

Because they both threw 5 INTs in a single game.

 

Roethlisberger had two run back for TDs in the span of three minutes. Oh, and he was at home. 

 

I don't know. If you ask me, an all-time great should be held to a higher standard and the rookie should be given a little slack. 

 

If Nate Peterman wins 2 Super Bowls for the Bills, and has 1 bad game for the Bills in which a season they finish 13 and 3, I think Bills fans would give him a little slack...... don’t you think?..

 

Once again you are confusing an accomplished vet who had a bad game vs. A rookie who was completely lost out there and has accomplished nothing yet in this league. I don’t understand your comparison at all

[twoandfourteen]

2 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:

If Nate Peterman wins 2 Super Bowls for the Bills, and has 1 bad game for the Bills in which a season they finish 13 and 3, I think Bills fans would give him a little slack...... don’t you think?..

 

Once again you are confusing an accomplished vet who had a bad game vs. A rookie who was completely lost out there and has accomplished nothing yet in this league. I don’t understand your comparison at all

 

Clearly. 

 

Focus less on the players and more on the "worst half for a QB ever" part. 

 

It's not fair and factually incorrect to completely write off Peterman and proclaim that he played the "worst half ever for a QB" when there was a much more accomplished player who did the exact same thing only weeks before. 

 

You need to look at this from a much broader standpoint. 

 

Player A is brand new and is expected to make rookie mistakes. It happens in all jobs across all walks of life. Still bad and unfortunate, but it happens. 

Player B is one of the best over to perform that job. He has a very bad performance, making similar "rookie mistakes" to Player A. 

 

The point is that Roethlisberger's 2nd half against the Jags was worse than Peterman's 1st half against the Chargers, because he (Ben) is a far more accomplished and talented player. 

 

It's worse when someone that good plays that bad, than when someone brand new with debatable skill plays poorly while learning on the job. 

 

Do you see what I'm saying here? 

[Comebackkid]

20 hours ago, SaviorPeterman said:

 

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).

Nothing personal against Peterson he may be good one day but. ..

He started two games.   One resulting in 5 picks in the first half...   no second half.

2nd resulting in getting his ass knocked out because he forgot how to slide, eliminating most of the 2nd half for him.  

Starts two games, doesn't finish either... that's usually not a positive trait for a QB

[cd1]

20 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Let's see. He has no poise under pressure, sloppy mechanics,spotty accuracy,  marginal arm strength,  and makes poor decisions. 

 

Sorry, late to this party BUT that statement above is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!

 

A rookie plays one half of a football game and is immediately deemed a BUST.

 

WIWWY

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, cd1 said:

 

Sorry, late to this party BUT that statement above is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!

 

A rookie plays one half of a football game and is immediately deemed a BUST.

 

WIWWY

 

It's not based on just how he performed in the LAC game and a 5th round rookie QB cannot be a bust.  Pay attention. 

[Bills757]

Again, I don't necessarily blame McD for a poor decision to start Peterman.  He was trying to see if NP could spark the offense after a couple of bumpy games. What I do blame him for is leaving the guy in the game after the second interception.  THAT is my issue with the LAC game.  It was very apparent LAC's pass rush was overwhelming our Oline so why leave your rookie in the game only to get beat up and humiliated (visa vi throwing 3 more picks)?  Makes no sense to me.

[BillsFan130]

58 minutes ago, twoandfourteen said:

 

Clearly. 

 

Focus less on the players and more on the "worst half for a QB ever" part. 

 

It's not fair and factually incorrect to completely write off Peterman and proclaim that he played the "worst half ever for a QB" when there was a much more accomplished player who did the exact same thing only weeks before. 

 

You need to look at this from a much broader standpoint. 

 

Player A is brand new and is expected to make rookie mistakes. It happens in all jobs across all walks of life. Still bad and unfortunate, but it happens. 

Player B is one of the best over to perform that job. He has a very bad performance, making similar "rookie mistakes" to Player A. 

 

The point is that Roethlisberger's 2nd half against the Jags was worse than Peterman's 1st half against the Chargers, because he (Ben) is a far more accomplished and talented player. 

 

It's worse when someone that good plays that bad, than when someone brand new with debatable skill plays poorly while learning on the job. 

 

Do you see what I'm saying here? 

I am not writing off Peterman. I’m saying he wasn’t ready to be put in that chargers game.

 

And yes I understand your points but I don’t agree with the comparisons at all.

 

Here is why...

 

1. Ben has won 2 Super Bowls and is extremely accomplished. Therefore there is absolutely no concern about whether he should have started that bad game /whether he should start the rest of the season 

 

2. Peterman has accomplished nothing. When a 5th round rookie has a historically bad half in his first game, that tells me he wasn’t even close to being ready.

 

So ya people can look away when Ben has a bad game because he’s a very accomplished vet. There is absolutely no concern about whether he will bounce back or not.

 

People are going to have a harder time looking the other way when a 5th round rookie gets plugged into a game in which he had no business being in, and completely crapped the bed.

 

Do you not understand that massive difference?

 

I am not saying Peterman is a bust. I’m simply saying he is not ready yet, and he had no business playing that game.

 

I don’t think one person in Pittsburgh was calling for Landry jones to start against Jax, or after bens bad game.

 

If you don’t understand that, I really don’t know what to tell you lol

 

 

[Billsfan1972]

49 minutes ago, Bills757 said:

Again, I don't necessarily blame McD for a poor decision to start Peterman.  He was trying to see if NP could spark the offense after a couple of bumpy games. What I do blame him for is leaving the guy in the game after the second interception.  THAT is my issue with the LAC game.  It was very apparent LAC's pass rush was overwhelming our Oline so why leave your rookie in the game only to get beat up and humiliated (visa vi throwing 3 more picks)?  Makes no sense to me.

No right thinking coach would start a ROOKIE FIFTH ROUND PICK in a game with serious playoff implications......   That is what he did and it was absolutely wrong and the results speak for themselves.....

 

Of course if you drink the Koolaid you'll tell me it was part of his master plan that makes him so much smarter then everyone else and that it lit a fire under Tyrod.....  Oops forgot the defense that was torched for 3 straight weeks and absolutely no repercussions for any defensive players......

 

How comical some of you are...... 

[teef]

4 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

No right thinking coach would start a ROOKIE FIFTH ROUND PICK in a game with serious playoff implications......   That is what he did and it was absolutely wrong and the results speak for themselves.....

 

Of course if you drink the Koolaid you'll tell me it was part of his master plan that makes him so much smarter then everyone else and that it lit a fire under Tyrod.....  Oops forgot the defense that was torched for 3 straight weeks and absolutely no repercussions for any defensive players......

 

How comical some of you are...... 

come on 72.  first off, who cares where a rookie was drafted?  apparently he looked good in practice, and mcd thought it could provide a spark.  it obviously was a wrong call, so time to move on.  second, it was taylor's play that made that decision a consideration in the first place.  how bad does your starter have to be to replace him with....as you love to say...A ROOKIE FIFTH ROUND PICK???

[Bills757]

2 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

No right thinking coach would start a ROOKIE FIFTH ROUND PICK in a game with serious playoff implications......   That is what he did and it was absolutely wrong and the results speak for themselves.....

 

Of course if you drink the Koolaid you'll tell me it was part of his master plan that makes him so much smarter then everyone else and that it lit a fire under Tyrod.....  Oops forgot the defense that was torched for 3 straight weeks and absolutely no repercussions for any defensive players......

 

How comical some of you are...... 

I'm not a kool-aid drinker, thank you and I don't think it was part of the master plan.  Taylor is not someone who needs to be benched to make him hungrier.  He's always been a consistently hard worker.  If you go back to my post, I said I don't "necessarily" blame McD which means while I didn't agree with the decision, I can see what he was trying to do.  But the real issue for me is two-fold......he basically blamed his starting QB for the previous games (which they were partly his fault for sure even though the D absolutely sucked) and he crushed the confidence of his rookie QB all in one half. 

 

While Taylor isn't a top flight QB, he is tops in the league when it comes to being able to handle adversity without dividing the locker room.  In an age when professional football players can be downright babies, TT stayed the course and kept grinding.  McD should feel pretty darn lucky to have a guy with that kind of attitude.

[MJS]

22 hours 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.

 

This. But I doubt we would have gotten to 9 wins that way. Taylor at least doesn't turn the ball over.