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.

[Lfod]

15 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...... 

The Peterman starting situation is over. It's ok to let go. It's ok for some one to have an opinion. It didn't cost the coach his job did it? It didn't cost of the playoffs did it? Almost what happened doesn't matter. I think everyone can agree after the fact that it was a bad move.

 

I just find it very dishonest to say without a doubt that people had the crystal ball telling them about 5 picks in the future. They made a calculated risk it failed miserable. If you can't appreciate some one taking a risk to be better then that's you. That's not everybody and your not the authority on it. Your just a guy with an opinion so speaking in absolutes does nothing for your cause.

 

The offense didn't play well. Did you watch the Panthers game? Something like 3 points on offence. The offense couldn't score one touchdown to win the game. Your ok with that and that's fine. Preach. Go fire the coach man, I believe in you.

 

People play the lottery take and make gambles. It's only stupid if you lose but not everyone does. There are millionaires out there made with luck. 

Edited January 3, 2018 by Lfod

[Luka]

It wasn't a mistake, it was a calculated risk. NO ONE predicted that Peterman would throw 5 picks in the first half. Any other team with a QB playing as poorly as Tyrod was would've benched him. It's over and done with. Tyrod lost the Carolina and Cinci game which were just as important to the season and was absolutely miserable to watch in the Saints game. And he wasn't playing well enough to imagine him coming close to beating the Chargers. Not so much a bad idea, just a really bad result.

[Billsfan1972]

5 minutes ago, teef said:

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???

Ah let me think......  Anyone with knowledge of football........  Yes he being a FIFTH ROUND draft pick was an important factor.....  

 

 

 

 

[Koko78]

22 hours 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!

 

Starting Peterman lit a fire under Tyrod's ass, which helped carry the team into the playoffs. I'd say the experiment worked pretty well.

[CardinalScotts]

when your last in passing offense and your qb has not topped 200 (not 300 mind you) 200 yards 8 times. Including games of 56 and 65 yards, i agree with McDermott  you don't say well thats okay your well liked. You say Jeez Tyrod not good enough and light a fire under his ass. He's played better since coming back including 3 -200 yd games to end the season. I like him as a person but he's not a good enough qb- but im also not going to rooting against him. 

 

Peterman will be the back up next year

 

and we all know we aren't beating the chargers with tyrod or peterman or anyone else

McDermott was able to get the ship into port with what we wanted (playoffs)

Edited January 3, 2018 by CardinalScotts

[Luka]

14 minutes ago, teef said:

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???

 

Not to mention, Tyrod was drafted where? The 6th. Draft position doesn't matter. You can either play or you can't.

[Billsfan1972]

5 minutes ago, Lfod said:

The Peterman starting situation is over. It's ok to let go. It's ok for some one to have an opinion. It didn't cost the coach his job did it? It didn't cost of the playoffs did it? Almost what happened doesn't matter. I think everyone can agree after the fact that it was a bad move.

 

I just find it very dishonest to say without a doubt that people had the crystal ball telling them about 5 picks in the future. They made a calculated risk it failed miserable. If you can't appreciate some one taking a risk to be better then that's you. That's not everybody and your not the authority on it. Your just a guy with an opinion so speaking in absolutes does nothing for your cause.

 

The offense didn't play well. Did you watch the Panthers game? Something like 3 points on offence. The offense couldn't score one touchdown to win the game. Your ok with that and that's fine. Preach. Go fire the coach man, I believe in you.

 

People play the lottery take and make gambles. It's only stupid if you lose but not everyone does. There are millionaires out there made with luck. 

 

1 minute ago, Luka said:

It wasn't a mistake, it was a calculated risk. NO ONE predicted that Peterman would throw 5 picks in the first half. Any other team with a QB playing as poorly as Tyrod was would've benched him. It's over and done with. Tyrod lost the Carolina and Cinci game which were just as important to the season and was absolutely miserable to watch in the Saints game. And he wasn't playing well enough to imagine him coming close to beating the Chargers. Not so much a bad idea, just a really bad result.

Not 5 picks in a half, but most predicted it was doomed to failure.

 

The best thing that happened was that it was so disastrous and Tyrod had to be put in at half.  McDermott even after ints 3 & 4 sent him back out with the game still in reach......  After #3 it was 17-7, after 4, 24-7, then 2 3 & outs to 34-7 and then #5 made it 37-7.......

 

If just a bad game, Peterman would have continued to start, the Bills would not be in the playoffs and you fan boys would be talking about the Draft Board right now...............

 

 

[What a Tuel]

22 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...... 

 

Once again this is revisionist history. This game did not have serious playoff implications at the time. The Chargers were 3-6, and would likely need to go at least 6-1 rest of year in order to be considered for the playoffs. They achieved that, but it was not at all likely.

[Billsfan1972]

6 minutes ago, Luka said:

 

Not to mention, Tyrod was drafted where? The 6th. Draft position doesn't matter. You can either play or you can't.

How many times???????  Tyrod was not a ROOKIE!!!!!!!!

Edited January 3, 2018 by Billsfan1972

[grb]

1 hour 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.

 

"spark the offense after a couple of bumpy games"

 

Sigh. Let's go over this one more time : Taylor played well against the Bucs. He played well against the Raiders. He played well against the Jets - being one of the few Bills who seemed to fully show up for that game. Then he played poorly against the Saints and was benched. Now maybe Taylor was sat down because the Bills running backs gained 28 yards in the Jets game and 47 yards in the Saints game. Maybe he was benched because the o-line had trouble blocking anybody - particularly against the Jets. Maybe he was benched because the wide receivers weren't getting any separation - particularly against the Saints. Maybe he was benched because the defense gave-up 194 yards rushing against the Jets and 298 gawdforsaken yards rushing against the Saints. Maybe he was benched because the team - Taylor excepted - didn't show-up to play New York on Thursday, and the defense wasn't showing up to play anybody anymore. 

 

Since the decision to start Peterman made zero sense then or now, it's impossible to tell why Taylor was benched. Part of it was probably a defense-minded coach whose defense wasn't showing up on the field. So - hey - let's start a fifth-round rookie. Part of it was probably Dennison and McDermott deciding poor Peterman didn't have to be ready - just system-y. Who knows? 

 

http://www.cover1.net/tyrod-taylor-didnt-deserve-to-be-benched-after-performance-against-saints/

Edited January 3, 2018 by grb

[Luka]

4 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

How many times???????  Tyrod was not a ROOKIE!!!!!!!!

Yea all those starts Tyrod had before he came to Buffalo...

 

Who the !@#$ cares? You're wrong, you know you're wrong but you keep talking. Nothing you've said has any importance or basis in reality. It's all hindsight bull **** and you'd be licking McDermott's feet if he put Peterman in and he won out and earned us a 3rd seed.

[What a Tuel]

3 minutes ago, grb said:

 

"spark the offense after a couple of bumpy games"

 

Sigh. Let's go over this one more time : Taylor played well against the Bucs. He played well against the Raiders. He played well against the Jets - being one of the few players who seemed to fully show up for that game. Then he played poorly against the Saints and was benched. Now maybe Taylor was sat down because the Bills running backs gained 28 yards in the Jets game and 47 yards in the Saints game. Maybe he was benched because the o-line had trouble blocking anybody - particularly against the Jets. Maybe he was benched because the wide receivers weren't getting any separation - particularly against the Saints. Maybe he was benched because the defense gave-up 194 yards rushing against the Jets and 298 gawdforsaken yards rushing against the Saints. Maybe he was benched because the team - Taylor excepted - didn't show-up to play New York on Thursday, and the defense wasn't showing up to play anybody anymore. 

 

Since the decision to start Peterman made zero sense then or now, it's impossible to tell why Taylor was benched. Part of it was probably a defense-minded coach whose defense wasn't showing up on the field. So - hey - let's start a fifth-round rookie. Part of it was probably Dennison and McDermott deciding poor Peterman didn't have to be ready - just system-y. Who knows? 

 

http://www.cover1.net/tyrod-taylor-didnt-deserve-to-be-benched-after-performance-against-saints/

 

He absolutely did deserve benching and a wake up call. The run game suffers when they know Tyrod won't throw the ball. And no, he did not do well in the Jets game. Constant 3 and outs. He only kicked it up a notch in the 4th quarter when the game was out of reach which buffed his stats.

[Luka]

4 minutes ago, grb said:

 

"spark the offense after a couple of bumpy games"

 

Sigh. Let's go over this one more time : Taylor played well against the Bucs. He played well against the Raiders. He played well against the Jets - being one of the few Bills who seemed to fully show up for that game. Then he played poorly against the Saints and was benched. Now maybe Taylor was sat down because the Bills running backs gained 28 yards in the Jets game and 47 yards in the Saints game. Maybe he was benched because the o-line had trouble blocking anybody - particularly against the Jets. Maybe he was benched because the wide receivers weren't getting any separation - particularly against the Saints. Maybe he was benched because the defense gave-up 194 yards rushing against the Jets and 298 gawdforsaken yards rushing against the Saints. Maybe he was benched because the team - Taylor excepted - didn't show-up to play New York on Thursday, and the defense wasn't showing up to play anybody anymore. 

 

Since the decision to start Peterman made zero sense then or now, it's impossible to tell why Taylor was benched. Part of it was probably a defense-minded coach whose defense wasn't showing up on the field. So - hey - let's start a fifth-round rookie. Part of it was probably Dennison and McDermott deciding poor Peterman didn't have to be ready - just system-y. Who knows? 

 

http://www.cover1.net/tyrod-taylor-didnt-deserve-to-be-benched-after-performance-against-saints/

 

He played like **** against the Jets, 75% of his stats cam in the last 6 minutes of that game when the Jets had already blown us out.

[Teddy KGB]

39 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...... 

 

14 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

How many times???????  Tyrod was not a ROOKIE!!!!!!!!

 

Hurry up and leave as you proclaimed in the other thread.  

 

I don’t know why you keep regurgitating the same nonsense about the Chargers game. 

 

Bills offense ranks 29th of 32 in case you have forgotten.     When your starting QBs sucks this bad, he gets the hook.  

 

Give it a rest already.    Coach was right.   You continue to be wrong.  

Edited January 3, 2018 by Teddy KGB

[Billsfan1972]

3 minutes ago, Luka said:

Yea all those starts Tyrod had before he came to Buffalo...

 

Who the !@#$ cares? You're wrong, you know you're wrong but you keep talking. Nothing you've said has any importance or basis in reality. It's all hindsight bull **** and you'd be licking McDermott's feet if he put Peterman in and he won out and earned us a 3rd seed.

How wrong can one be????  You learn on the sidelines, like many qb's do.....  See Brady, Garropolo........  Any success from later round picks came from learning for a minimum of 1 and often 2-3 years......    

 

This was a joke.....  Yes Peterman would have earned the Bills the #3 seed, which meant beating the Patriots twice, which actually would have gotten them the #1 seed.......  Aim high my friend........

 

What a joke.......  And some thought I was joking that Peterman should start vs. Jacksonville????

[Lfod]

23 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

 

Not 5 picks in a half, but most predicted it was doomed to failure.

 

The best thing that happened was that it was so disastrous and Tyrod had to be put in at half.  McDermott even after ints 3 & 4 sent him back out with the game still in reach......  After #3 it was 17-7, after 4, 24-7, then 2 3 & outs to 34-7 and then #5 made it 37-7.......

 

If just a bad game, Peterman would have continued to start, the Bills would not be in the playoffs and you fan boys would be talking about the Draft Board right now...............

 

 

It was an epic disaster of epic proportions. It was so bad it was comical. What I am saying mostly is that the season looked to be slipping away. It wasn't trending well in my view. It wasn't just the 3 game slide either. It was the Panthers game and generally the offense wasn't impressive. When the defense went away for 3 games the offense couldn't pick up the slack like the defense did for the offense in games.

 

I mean turn overs rained and the offense was getting field goals or nothing. I think that's the part your missing. The loss of hope. The rise of doubt. Nothing was a lock anymore. It wasn't 5-2 anymore. Even when it was 5-2 I'd say a very large part was the defense. I can't credit all the wasted turn overs. I can credit them to holding teams to low scores.

 

I don't think anyone would say your wrong that Peterman blew it. If you step back and look at the entire picture you would see the situation was getting desperate. Desperate times might call for desperate measures. 

 

Just maybe consider people were getting desperate and wanted to put hope into something new when there was doubt in the status quo. We didn't get the Peterman can song because Tyrod was balling. Heck we in the playoffs and I still don't see the Tyrod can song. 

 

Sure Peterman can't. Tyrod wasn't either. It was a battle of the worse QB and Peterman won by a solid mile. Just some of us needed to see that battle and some didn't.

Edited January 3, 2018 by Lfod

[teef]

28 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Ah let me think......  Anyone with knowledge of football........  Yes he being a FIFTH ROUND draft pick was an important factor.....  

 

 

 

 

oh 72...you really are bad at having a normal conversation.  5th round doesn't matter at all.  

23 minutes ago, Luka said:

 

Not to mention, Tyrod was drafted where? The 6th. Draft position doesn't matter. You can either play or you can't.

round doesn't matter once you're in the league.  i'm not in any way saying it was a good idea to start nate, but 72 has his hands around this idea, and won't let it go.  he's decided that he hates this staff because they traded away watkins.  he can't be angry they didn't make the playoffs, so now his clinging to this.  unfortunately he's completely unreasonable.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...hilarious....the TBD "One & Done Gang" outdid themselves.........a 5th round ROOK has minis, QTA's, TC, some pre-season work, ONE start and some mop up duty and THAT constitutes an ERA?.......or maybe a CAREER?........hell, I'd bet every draft eligible QB goes to church daily hopin' and prayin' they are OBD's pick so they can start and finish the ERA like that.......month to month apartment rent is their best option...............

[teef]

24 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

How many times???????  Tyrod was not a ROOKIE!!!!!!!!

he's not a rookie, and he's put up numbers far less that what other rookies have put up in the past.  hence starting peterman.  i like tyrod as i've mentioned a million times, but he needed to put up far better production as a VETERAN! ( i can yell through the internet too).

11 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

 

Hurry up and leave as you proclaimed in the other thread.  

 

I don’t know why you keep regurgitating the same nonsense about the Chargers game. 

 

Bills offense ranks 29th of 32 in case you have forgotten.     When your starting QBs sucks this bad, he gets the hook.  

 

Give it a rest already.    Coach was right.   You continue to be wrong.  

it's what he does.  he was telling a number of us that we couldn't have an opinion on watkins because we didn't watch enough of the rams games.  

 

during that time he insisted that sammy was elite, that we was the worlds greatest decoy, and that goff was being coached not to throw to sammy.  he actually tried to push this off as truth.  when he doesn't have a real argument, he harps on the same point over and over, no matter how bad it is.  this is what he's doing with the peterman nonsense.  he hates the staff, and it's the easiest way for him to attack them.  for a guy that's older than i am, (i'm 40) it's kinda sad.

[grb]

26 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

He absolutely did deserve benching and a wake up call. The run game suffers when they know Tyrod won't throw the ball. And no, he did not do well in the Jets game. Constant 3 and outs. He only kicked it up a notch in the 4th quarter when the game was out of reach which buffed his stats.

 

The dead-enders defending the Peterman decision have settled on one critical tactic : They seem to recognize the absurdity of benching Taylor for the Saints game alone, so the record of TNF versus the Jets must be rewritten at all cost. But there are these irksome problems to be expected when you try to substitute fiction for fact. First, the 4th quarter garbage time crap is as phony as a three dollar bill. In the first-half of the Jets game Taylor was  11-14, 79% completion, 115 yrds, 8.21 ypa, and a TD pass. And - needless to say - no interceptions. Taylor didn't just play well in the Fourth, he played well the entire game. You might try any of accounts from Bills' sportswriter or commentators at the time for a second confirmation. Everyone said Taylor played well; you'll find no one to support your fiction....

 

25 minutes ago, Luka said:

 

He played like **** against the Jets, 75% of his stats cam in the last 6 minutes of that game when the Jets had already blown us out.

 

The eternal question : Dishonest or Delusional?

 

Taylor, First-half of the Jets game :  11-14, 79% completion, 115 yrds, 8.21 ypa, and a TD pass.

Also : No interceptions. 

 

Edited January 3, 2018 by grb