Why the Peterman hate

[starrymessenger]

7 hours ago, NoSaint said:

I don’t mind peterman but peterman fans can at times be really hard to put up with

 

Yeah. Almost as much as his detractors 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

7 hours ago, NoSaint said:

I don’t mind peterman but peterman fans can at times be really hard to put up with

 

As mentioned ...  Ignore those 2 or 3 people.  It's easy to do.   

[twoandfourteen]

18 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

How has it been twisted?

 

 

 

That somehow Peterman's appearances this season 'prove' that you can "win with" Tyrod and that McD was an idiot for making a change. The reality is that Tyrod is responsible for that decision being made. His inability to play at even a barely functional level forced Peterman into the discussion. 

 

Taylor, as a 7 year veteran and 3 year starter has been just as detrimental to the offense as Peterman had been. Punting all day long and only scoring 1 FG isn't that much of an improvement over a couple of INTs from your rookie. At least the rookie is trying to make something happen while your veteran is fixated on protecting the only statistic keeping him relevant.

 

37 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

This why people laugh at Peterman it's nothing personal. It's that people want to usher Tyrod out the door for not being good enough but then want this kid to be involved in a competition for the job.

 

He can be in a competition for a back up, he's shown nothing that he's a capable starter.

 

You could say that about the rookie seasons of lots of legitimately good starting QBs over the years. 

 

You're also wrong. Peterman's game against the Colts actually happened and was encouraging. I'll hold off on dismissing the guy until next year. He had some really bad moments, but also had a couple of good ones. All in all, he played like you would expect a late-round rookie QB to play. 

[Dorkington]

He could still develop, but he's clearly a year or two away before he'll have any chance of being a viable QB. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Saying its too early to make any call on Nate does not make one a Peterman lover. 

 

Criticizing Taylor for his obvious flaws does not make one a Taylor hater.

 

 

[twoandfourteen]

1 minute ago, Dorkington said:

He could still develop, but he's clearly a year or two away before he'll have any chance of being a viable QB. 

 

I agree with this -- probably the only really fair assessment of 2 after this circus season. 

[Woodman19]

I think the "Peterman hate" boils down to a few camps.

 

First you have the "not my QB" camp.  They are the people who wanted Watson, Mahomes and Kizer types. They take exception that he's not the guy they wanted and nothing is going to change that until Peterman shows he is a good QB.

 

Secondly you have the "Threat to Tyrod" fans.  These are the ones who no matter who we drafted would be at that QB because they are threats to steal his job and kick him off the team, it's less pronounced now then before (largely because of his own undoing) but that was a very vocal anti Peterman camp especially early.

 

Thirdly you have the "instant gratification" crowd. The you are only as good as your last drive types. To them it doesn't matter that you are a project, rookie or game situation.  If you aren't lighting it up then it's because you are awful.

 

Outside of those three groups you are going to have a few minor ones mixed in with the Boxscore scouts, Style, Tools and draft location people.  These are the ones where no matter what he does (even if he becomes Brady 2.0) will always hate him no matter what because of what he's not or where he was drafted.

 

[Ol Dirty B]

1 minute ago, twoandfourteen said:

 

That somehow Peterman's appearances this season 'prove' that you can "win with" Tyrod and that McD was an idiot for making a change. The reality is that Tyrod is responsible for that decision being made. His inability to play at even a barely functional level forced Peterman into the discussion. 

 

Taylor, as a 7 year veteran and 3 year starter has been just as detrimental to the offense as Peterman had been. Punting all day long and only scoring 1 FG isn't that much of an improvement over a couple of INTs from your rookie. At least the rookie is trying to make something happen while your veteran is fixated on protecting the only statistic keeping him relevant.

 

 

You could say that about the rookie seasons of lots of legitimately good starting QBs over the years. 

 

You're also wrong. Peterman's game against the Colts actually happened and was encouraging. I'll hold off on dismissing the guy until next year. He had some really bad moments, but also had a couple of good ones. All in all, he played like you would expect a late-round rookie QB to play. 

 

If you're evaluating anyone of the Colts game I take your judgment for a grain of salt. That was a throw away game, you couldn't evaluate any players based off that game. If we played in that every week maybe it would be meaningful, but that was useless.

 

Also it wasn't a couple picks, it was 5. And the game again looked like it was moving too fast for him. His pocket presence is awful. 

 

Whether Tyrod deserved to be benched has nothing to do with an evaluation of Peterman. That's more of a question for how you evaluate McDermott. 

 

Everything you said is just non sense. So not throwing interceptions has now became a bad thing? I mean what kind of convoluted logic do you use when it comes to thinking about this. Peterman is Peterman. Tyrod is Tyrod. They are two separate entities to analyze, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

I judge Peterman for Peterman. And it's simple, he's not good. You say plenty of QBs have had bad first years then turned out good. That's fine, but we're talking about a fifth round pick or whatever who has put up one of the worst games statistically since the merger. We're not talking about hanging in there with a number 1 overall pick like a John Elway. It's not even the same prospect. It's ridiculous 

1 minute ago, Woodman19 said:

I think the "Peterman hate" boils down to a few camps.

 

First you have the "not my QB" camp.  They are the people who wanted Watson, Mahomes and Kizer types. They take exception that he's not the guy they wanted and nothing is going to change that until Peterman shows he is a good QB.

 

Secondly you have the "Threat to Tyrod" fans.  These are the ones who no matter who we drafted would be at that QB because they are threats to steal his job and kick him off the team, it's less pronounced now then before (largely because of his own undoing) but that was a very vocal anti Peterman camp especially early.

 

Thirdly you have the "instant gratification" crowd. The you are only as good as your last drive types. To them it doesn't matter that you are a project, rookie or game situation.  If you aren't lighting it up then it's because you are awful.

 

Outside of those three groups you are going to have a few minor ones mixed in with the Boxscore scouts, Style, Tools and draft location people.  These are the ones where no matter what he does (even if he becomes Brady 2.0) will always hate him no matter what because of what he's not or where he was drafted.

 

 

So you're basically saying no one can disagree with you and have a legitimate point.

 

Guys this guy got it, no one has any rational basis for saying Peterman is not good.

[Woodman19]

4 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

If you're evaluating anyone of the Colts game I take your judgment for a grain of salt. That was a throw away game, you couldn't evaluate any players based off that game. If we played in that every week maybe it would be meaningful, but that was useless.

 

Also it wasn't a couple picks, it was 5. And the game again looked like it was moving too fast for him. His pocket presence is awful. 

 

Whether Tyrod deserved to be benched has nothing to do with an evaluation of Peterman. That's more of a question for how you evaluate McDermott. 

 

Everything you said is just non sense. So not throwing interceptions has now became a bad thing? I mean what kind of convoluted logic do you use when it comes to thinking about this. Peterman is Peterman. Tyrod is Tyrod. They are two separate entities to analyze, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

I judge Peterman for Peterman. And it's simple, he's not good. You say plenty of QBs have had bad first years then turned out good. That's fine, but we're talking about a fifth round pick or whatever who has put up one of the worst games statistically since the merger. We're not talking about hanging in there with a number 1 overall pick like a John Elway. It's not even the same prospect. It's ridiculous 

 

So you're basically saying no one can disagree with you and have a legitimate point.

 

Guys this guy got it, no one has any rational basis for saying Peterman is not good.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm categorizing the camps.

[Ol Dirty B]

2 minutes ago, Woodman19 said:

That's not what I'm saying, I'm categorizing the camps.

 

Ok I hear ya. I'm not a fan of throwing people into groups like that, but I do agree their is some truth to what you said.

 

It just seemed as though you were taking legitimacy out of anyone who doesn't like Peterman as a prospect. 

[Woodman19]

Just now, Ol Dirty B said:

 

Ok I hear ya. I'm not a fan of throwing people into groups like that, but I do agree their is some truth to what you said.

 

It just seemed as though you were taking legitimacy out of anyone who doesn't like Peterman as a prospect. 

I could categorize the anti Tyrod people too but I suspect 3 years and lack of development as a passer in those 3 years is more self explanatory.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

4 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

Ok I hear ya. I'm not a fan of throwing people into groups like that, but I do agree their is some truth to what you said.

 

It just seemed as though you were taking legitimacy out of anyone who doesn't like Peterman as a prospect. 

 

unfortunately there are divisions.  and all to often people are lumped into groups.  

 

The size of the keep Taylor group is dwindling very fast and there can't be many left.  

 

imo the vast majority are fed up with Taylor's play and know we need to move on

 

there is a group that will say that we can't evaluate a player on such a small margin of games and plays.   this is in reference to both Nate and Zay.  

 

the hate words needs to go away.  One "side" uses it and the other "side" tosses it back.  whats good for the goose is good for the gander mentality. 

 

[Gugny]

Whatever the opposite of "it," is .... that's what Nate Peterman has.  Kid's got no business being on a roster, IMO.

[twoandfourteen]

29 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

If you're evaluating anyone of the Colts game I take your judgment for a grain of salt. That was a throw away game, you couldn't evaluate any players based off that game. If we played in that every week maybe it would be meaningful, but that was useless.

 

Also it wasn't a couple picks, it was 5. And the game again looked like it was moving too fast for him. His pocket presence is awful. 

 

Whether Tyrod deserved to be benched has nothing to do with an evaluation of Peterman. That's more of a question for how you evaluate McDermott. 

 

Everything you said is just non sense. So not throwing interceptions has now became a bad thing? I mean what kind of convoluted logic do you use when it comes to thinking about this. Peterman is Peterman. Tyrod is Tyrod. They are two separate entities to analyze, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

I judge Peterman for Peterman. And it's simple, he's not good. You say plenty of QBs have had bad first years then turned out good. That's fine, but we're talking about a fifth round pick or whatever who has put up one of the worst games statistically since the merger. We're not talking about hanging in there with a number 1 overall pick like a John Elway. It's not even the same prospect. It's ridiculous 

 

So you're basically saying no one can disagree with you and have a legitimate point.

 

Guys this guy got it, no one has any rational basis for saying Peterman is not good.

 

I'm saying the guy played well under extremely difficult circumstances in the Colts game. That's it. 

 

I'm not breaking down film, here. I couldn't care less. Did he go in and get the job done? The answer is yes. 

 

Talking about the big picture. 

Just now, twoandfourteen said:

Also it wasn't a couple picks, it was 5. And the game again looked like it was moving too fast for him. His pocket presence is awful. 

 

Ben Roethlisberger threw 5 picks in a game this year, too. By your rationale, Pittsburgh probably should have cut him after that one then. 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

24 minutes ago, Woodman19 said:

I think the "Peterman hate" boils down to a few camps.

 

First you have the "not my QB" camp.  They are the people who wanted Watson, Mahomes and Kizer types. They take exception that he's not the guy they wanted and nothing is going to change that until Peterman shows he is a good QB.

 

Secondly you have the "Threat to Tyrod" fans.  These are the ones who no matter who we drafted would be at that QB because they are threats to steal his job and kick him off the team, it's less pronounced now then before (largely because of his own undoing) but that was a very vocal anti Peterman camp especially early.

 

Thirdly you have the "instant gratification" crowd. The you are only as good as your last drive types. To them it doesn't matter that you are a project, rookie or game situation.  If you aren't lighting it up then it's because you are awful.

 

Outside of those three groups you are going to have a few minor ones mixed in with the Boxscore scouts, Style, Tools and draft location people.  These are the ones where no matter what he does (even if he becomes Brady 2.0) will always hate him no matter what because of what he's not or where he was drafted.

 

 

Good Grief.  Delusional much?

 

This is a pretty knowledgeable board.  I would expect the overwhelmingly major group to be able to read a boxscore and to be hard-headedly realistic that expectations arise from draft position + performance.  It has absolutely nothing to do with "hate", or liking for a different QB, or "instant gratification", and everything to do with when you have a guy in preseason who completes an average of 54.4% of his passes against backups in preseason (5.7 ypa) and worse, has two games where it's 50% or less for 4 or 4.5 ypa, you aren't impressed with him or filled with the thought that he's anything other than the typical late-round-pick trajectory - a clipboard holder for several years who, if he comes up to speed on the pro game and fights off other late round picks for the chance, may be a backup for several years and eventually develop into a serviceable QB. 

If and when he does, we'll be delighted that we have a serviceable backup.  Until that point, nothing he's shown in the regular season has changed him from "not ready nate", including the "Indy" game where he completed....50% of his passes for 5.7 ypa.

 

On a sane team, these are numbers that don't inspire fans to want to keep a guy around much less have him start.  They are Jeff Tuel-like.  Thad Lewis was better.

 

[twoandfourteen]

47 minutes ago, Woodman19 said:

I think the "Peterman hate" boils down to a few camps.

 

First you have the "not my QB" camp.  They are the people who wanted Watson, Mahomes and Kizer types. They take exception that he's not the guy they wanted and nothing is going to change that until Peterman shows he is a good QB.

 

Secondly you have the "Threat to Tyrod" fans.  These are the ones who no matter who we drafted would be at that QB because they are threats to steal his job and kick him off the team, it's less pronounced now then before (largely because of his own undoing) but that was a very vocal anti Peterman camp especially early.

 

Thirdly you have the "instant gratification" crowd. The you are only as good as your last drive types. To them it doesn't matter that you are a project, rookie or game situation.  If you aren't lighting it up then it's because you are awful.

 

Outside of those three groups you are going to have a few minor ones mixed in with the Boxscore scouts, Style, Tools and draft location people.  These are the ones where no matter what he does (even if he becomes Brady 2.0) will always hate him no matter what because of what he's not or where he was drafted.

 

 

 

[prissythecat]

17 minutes ago, twoandfourteen said:

 

I'm saying the guy played well under extremely difficult circumstances in the Colts game. That's it. 

 

I'm not breaking down film, here. I couldn't care less. Did he go in and get the job done? The answer is yes. 

 

Talking about the big picture. 

 

Ben Roethlisberger threw 5 picks in a game this year, too. By your rationale, Pittsburgh probably should have cut him after that one then. 

 

 

 

Nate Peterman hasn't done anything in a game to indicate he deserves the type of slack one would give to Big Ben,   As others have correctly pointed out, Peterman's gametime stats (e.g., completion percentage , YPA)   are less than stellar.   I think folks are putting too much stock in a QB drafted in later rounds.   

[Hapless Bills Fan]

39 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

If you're evaluating anyone of the Colts game I take your judgment for a grain of salt. That was a throw away game, you couldn't evaluate any players based off that game. If we played in that every week maybe it would be meaningful, but that was useless.

 

Also it wasn't a couple picks, it was 5. And the game again looked like it was moving too fast for him. His pocket presence is awful. 

 

Whether Tyrod deserved to be benched has nothing to do with an evaluation of Peterman. That's more of a question for how you evaluate McDermott. 

 

Everything you said is just non sense. So not throwing interceptions has now became a bad thing? I mean what kind of convoluted logic do you use when it comes to thinking about this. Peterman is Peterman. Tyrod is Tyrod. They are two separate entities to analyze, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

I judge Peterman for Peterman. And it's simple, he's not good. You say plenty of QBs have had bad first years then turned out good. That's fine, but we're talking about a fifth round pick or whatever who has put up one of the worst games statistically since the merger. We're not talking about hanging in there with a number 1 overall pick like a John Elway. It's not even the same prospect. It's ridiculous

 

Precisely so: benching Taylor in favor of Peterman for a road game against a fierce D has to do with evaluating McDermott/Dennison.  And that does concern me. 

Mark Bullock on Cover1 ran a piece about Taylor and the Saints game that I've linked before and is still worth reading.  Bullock points out that for most of the game, we were not running patterns appropriate for the Saint's Tampa 2 coverage, and WR were not getting open.  He also points out the times Taylor *did* leave passes on the field.  We were slow to adjust, but late in the game, we did introduce some better routes to beat Tampa 2 and Peterman succeeded with them - but they were being called for the first time.

Read that piece, and the benching of Taylor looks more like the classic "deflection of blame" some leaders use ("we sucked, but it's not my fault, no one could win with this QB, even our 5th round rookie is better") instead of the sort of honest self-evaluation and critique that the top coaches need to be willing to face unflinchingly. 

 

I expect when the all-22 assessments come out, there will be similar to be said about the Jags game yesterday to the N'Orleans game:  for much of the game, receivers not open, Taylor harried and under pressure; WR not making plays when they did get a catchable pass thrown to them,; stupid mistakes like OPI and holding and yes, Taylor left a handful of plays on the field that he really needs to make.  There are three areas for concern there (play design/calling; wr performance; Taylor's performance).

But the evaluation of Dennison/McDermott's decision making is the real cause for concern.  Don't confuse this for excusing Taylor or saying he's "good enough" to move forward with.  He's clearly limited, and not progressing.  But to progress, not regress, requires hard-eyed self-criticism as well as sound player evaluation.

 

9 minutes ago, twoandfourteen said:

 

 

 

Because cool internet memes top logic and common sense.  Got it. 

[Happy]

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Precisely so: benching Taylor in favor of Peterman for a road game against a fierce D has to do with evaluating McDermott/Dennison.  And that does concern me. 

Mark Bullock on Cover1 ran a piece about Taylor and the Saints game that I've linked before and is still worth reading.  Bullock points out that for most of the game, we were not running patterns appropriate for the Saint's Tampa 2 coverage, and WR were not getting open.  He also points out the times Taylor *did* leave passes on the field.  We were slow to adjust, but late in the game, we did introduce some better routes to beat Tampa 2 and Peterman succeeded with them - but they were being called for the first time.

Read that piece, and the benching of Taylor looks more like the classic "deflection of blame" some leaders use ("we sucked, but it's not my fault, no one could win with this QB, even our 5th round rookie is better") instead of the sort of honest self-evaluation and critique that the top coaches need to be willing to face unflinchingly. 

 

I expect when the all-22 assessments come out, there will be similar to be said about the Jags game yesterday to the N'Orleans game:  for much of the game, receivers not open, Taylor harried and under pressure; WR not making plays when they did get a catchable pass thrown to them,; stupid mistakes like OPI and holding and yes, Taylor left a handful of plays on the field that he really needs to make.  There are three areas for concern there (play design/calling; wr performance; Taylor's performance).

But the evaluation of Dennison/McDermott's decision making is the real cause for concern.  Don't confuse this for excusing Taylor or saying he's "good enough" to move forward with.  He's clearly limited, and not progressing.  But to progress, not regress, requires hard-eyed self-criticism as well as sound player evaluation.

 

 

Excellent post and good summary of the issues plaguing the offense this year.  What it boils down to is that Dennison and Tyrod cannot co-exist; two different styles that mix like oil and water.

[BuffaloHokie13]

Kid needs to work on his arm strength. People have developed it before, but the majority of his picks are because the ball didn't have the proper zip for a deep out.

[twoandfourteen]

3 minutes ago, prissythecat said:

 

Nate Peterman hasn't done anything in a game to indicate he deserves the type of slack one would give to Big Ben,   As others have correctly pointed out, Peterman's gametime stats (e.g., completion percentage , YPA)   are less than stellar.   I think folks are putting too much stock in a QB drafted in later rounds.   

 

So a rookie playing in his first ever game has LESS of a margin for error than a future Hall of Fame guy. Got it. 

 

Maybe, instead of excusing BR and condemning NP -- look at it like, "Well, 5 INT games are really bad -- but they happen sometimes, even to the best guys to ever play the game. So, its entirely conceivable for a rookie to have a meltdown like that. Maybe we should slow down and wait a little bit longer to see how he does next year?" 

 

But no. There's no learning curve allowed,  there's no such thing as "rookie mistakes" anymore. 

 

We'll still give Tyrod three full seasons to punt the ball away and maybe kick a FG if we're lucky all day long. All he needs are "more weapons" and a "better defense". 

 

I don't know what NP's going to be -- he could be out of the league in two years for all I care. I'm just blown away by the lack of any nuance when it comes to that guy. 

[TigerJ]

At this point in time I think the main problem Peterman is dealing with in his QB play is that he has not adjusted to the superior athleticism and anticipation of NFL DBs relative to their college counterparts.  He needs to be a little more cautious about throwing into tight coverage.  I have no idea if there will come a time that Peterman will get it.  I think his accuracy is good and his anticipation is good.  If he can solve that problem, I think we have a QB.  The problem is, the Bills can't afford to bet all their "money" that Peterman will be able to make the jump.  They would need to hedge any bet they want to make, meaning they need to try and acquire a QB who will be a viable starter for next season, whether it is via free agency, trade or the draft.

[Billsfan1972]

1 hour ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

If you're evaluating anyone of the Colts game I take your judgment for a grain of salt. That was a throw away game, you couldn't evaluate any players based off that game. If we played in that every week maybe it would be meaningful, but that was useless.

 

Also it wasn't a couple picks, it was 5. And the game again looked like it was moving too fast for him. His pocket presence is awful. 

 

Whether Tyrod deserved to be benched has nothing to do with an evaluation of Peterman. That's more of a question for how you evaluate McDermott. 

 

Everything you said is just non sense. So not throwing interceptions has now became a bad thing? I mean what kind of convoluted logic do you use when it comes to thinking about this. Peterman is Peterman. Tyrod is Tyrod. They are two separate entities to analyze, they have nothing to do with each other.

 

I judge Peterman for Peterman. And it's simple, he's not good. You say plenty of QBs have had bad first years then turned out good. That's fine, but we're talking about a fifth round pick or whatever who has put up one of the worst games statistically since the merger. We're not talking about hanging in there with a number 1 overall pick like a John Elway. It's not even the same prospect. It's ridiculous 

 

So you're basically saying no one can disagree with you and have a legitimate point.

 

Guys this guy got it, no one has any rational basis for saying Peterman is not good.

Well said........

17 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Precisely so: benching Taylor in favor of Peterman for a road game against a fierce D has to do with evaluating McDermott/Dennison.  And that does concern me. 

Mark Bullock on Cover1 ran a piece about Taylor and the Saints game that I've linked before and is still worth reading.  Bullock points out that for most of the game, we were not running patterns appropriate for the Saint's Tampa 2 coverage, and WR were not getting open.  He also points out the times Taylor *did* leave passes on the field.  We were slow to adjust, but late in the game, we did introduce some better routes to beat Tampa 2 and Peterman succeeded with them - but they were being called for the first time.

Read that piece, and the benching of Taylor looks more like the classic "deflection of blame" some leaders use ("we sucked, but it's not my fault, no one could win with this QB, even our 5th round rookie is better") instead of the sort of honest self-evaluation and critique that the top coaches need to be willing to face unflinchingly. 

 

I expect when the all-22 assessments come out, there will be similar to be said about the Jags game yesterday to the N'Orleans game:  for much of the game, receivers not open, Taylor harried and under pressure; WR not making plays when they did get a catchable pass thrown to them,; stupid mistakes like OPI and holding and yes, Taylor left a handful of plays on the field that he really needs to make.  There are three areas for concern there (play design/calling; wr performance; Taylor's performance).

But the evaluation of Dennison/McDermott's decision making is the real cause for concern.  Don't confuse this for excusing Taylor or saying he's "good enough" to move forward with.  He's clearly limited, and not progressing.  But to progress, not regress, requires hard-eyed self-criticism as well as sound player evaluation.

 

 

Because cool internet memes top logic and common sense.  Got it. 

Another very good post.....

[section122]

43 minutes ago, Gugny said:

Whatever the opposite of "it," is .... that's what Nate Peterman has.  Kid's got no business being on a roster, IMO.

 

Absolutely.  It doesn't have to be a Tyrod vs.  Nate thing.  They can both be bad.  For some reason Nate gets a ton of excuses for his play.  He has 2 tds to 6 ints and 2 fumbles.  Don't give me the peyton manning nonsense.  1 was the #1 overall pick and one was a 5th rounder.  Nate is bad.  Like shouldn't be on an NFL roster.  The qb of the future is not on the roster right now.  If Tyrod stays it will be as a placeholder until the new guy is ready.  Nate Peterman will never on purpose (meaning unless injury) start another game for the Bills and I would be really surprised to see him on the team next year.  He has shown one thing this season and it is that he can't play in this league.  Doesn't make him a bad guy just can't cut it. 

[Woodman19]

4 minutes ago, section122 said:

 

Absolutely.  It doesn't have to be a Tyrod vs.  Nate thing.  They can both be bad.  For some reason Nate gets a ton of excuses for his play.  He has 2 tds to 6 ints and 2 fumbles.  Don't give me the peyton manning nonsense.  1 was the #1 overall pick and one was a 5th rounder.  Nate is bad.  Like shouldn't be on an NFL roster.  The qb of the future is not on the roster right now.  If Tyrod stays it will be as a placeholder until the new guy is ready.  Nate Peterman will never on purpose (meaning unless injury) start another game for the Bills and I would be really surprised to see him on the team next year.  He has shown one thing this season and it is that he can't play in this league.  Doesn't make him a bad guy just can't cut it. 

Might have something to do with being a rookie, most rookie QB's get a pass.  

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[twoandfourteen]

3 minutes ago, section122 said:

Like shouldn't be on an NFL roster

 

52 minutes ago, Gugny said:

Kid's got no business being on a roster

 

This is the stuff I'm talking about. 

 

Sorry the 5th round rookie didn't come off the bench cold and step into the final seconds of a playoff game with everything on the line and get it done for you. 

 

To make this kind of dismissal on any player after such limited exposure is ridiculous. 

 

I don't particularly feel great about NP's ceiling -- he's probably a journeyman/spot starter at best. I wouldn't be surprised if he develops into a better overall QB than Tyrod Taylor eventually. Of course, that's not saying very much. 

 

If you make the "Tyrod doesn't have WRs!" or "Rick Dennison SUCKS!" arguments, then wouldn't those arguments stand as defense for Peterman as well? Maybe give him a shot to develop another year under a new OC? 

 

It's ridiculous to be so hyperbolic about his status in the league at this point in time.

[section122]

21 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Precisely so: benching Taylor in favor of Peterman for a road game against a fierce D has to do with evaluating McDermott/Dennison.  And that does concern me. 

Mark Bullock on Cover1 ran a piece about Taylor and the Saints game that I've linked before and is still worth reading.  Bullock points out that for most of the game, we were not running patterns appropriate for the Saint's Tampa 2 coverage, and WR were not getting open.  He also points out the times Taylor *did* leave passes on the field.  We were slow to adjust, but late in the game, we did introduce some better routes to beat Tampa 2 and Peterman succeeded with them - but they were being called for the first time.

Read that piece, and the benching of Taylor looks more like the classic "deflection of blame" some leaders use ("we sucked, but it's not my fault, no one could win with this QB, even our 5th round rookie is better") instead of the sort of honest self-evaluation and critique that the top coaches need to be willing to face unflinchingly. 

 

I expect when the all-22 assessments come out, there will be similar to be said about the Jags game yesterday to the N'Orleans game:  for much of the game, receivers not open, Taylor harried and under pressure; WR not making plays when they did get a catchable pass thrown to them,; stupid mistakes like OPI and holding and yes, Taylor left a handful of plays on the field that he really needs to make.  There are three areas for concern there (play design/calling; wr performance; Taylor's performance).

But the evaluation of Dennison/McDermott's decision making is the real cause for concern.  Don't confuse this for excusing Taylor or saying he's "good enough" to move forward with.  He's clearly limited, and not progressing.  But to progress, not regress, requires hard-eyed self-criticism as well as sound player evaluation.

 

 

This is an excellent post.  I'm all done with Dennison.  To your bolded that is how I felt in the moment of the benching.  

 

The one thing I will say is there is no shame in being shut down by the Jags.  Yesterday was their 8th time holding a team under 10 points.  Andy Dalton, Big Ben, and Joe Flacco were among the qbs and a host of bad offenses.  The Bills have a bad offense and not surprisingly were shut down.  Yesterday I had a party and a few of my friends started calling run or pass before the ball was hiked.  They aren't Bills fans and it was the first game they had watched of them all year.  That was eye opening for just how predictable the offense was.  There is or should be some shame in that.   There is zero innovation on the offensive side of the ball.  I'm really nervous what Dennison will do with/to a rookie qb.

[billsredneck1]

14 minutes ago, TigerJ said:

At this point in time I think the main problem Peterman is dealing with in his QB play is that he has not adjusted to the superior athleticism and anticipation of NFL DBs relative to their college counterparts.  He needs to be a little more cautious about throwing into tight coverage.  I have no idea if there will come a time that Peterman will get it.  I think his accuracy is good and his anticipation is good.  If he can solve that problem, I think we have a QB.  The problem is, the Bills can't afford to bet all their "money" that Peterman will be able to make the jump.  They would need to hedge any bet they want to make, meaning they need to try and acquire a QB who will be a viable starter for next season, whether it is via free agency, trade or the draft.

i feel the bills will draft a qb such as rudolph who may fall to them. i don't see them spending a lot to move up and i don't see them trading away a bunch of picks for a vet. i think peterman is going to win the starting job next year. just a gut feeling.

[Livinginthepast]

Peterman looks like a QB who telegraphs his throws too much thus giving the Dbs time to step in front and intercept. That happened in the SD game. Yesterday's INT looked similar. I think he does have the arm strength though but if he gives away his intentions so easily that doesn't matter.

 

Felt bad for him yesterday. Imagine the pressure of being thrust into that situation, 1 min left in the game, 4th down and you have to produce a TD or end of the season against a very tough defense. Probably the most difficult high pressure first playoff appearance ever.

[cba fan]

15 hours ago, LEBills said:

Um he can’t play because he has a noodle arm...

wrong.

 

In combine he had more arm strength then Deshaun Watson by about 3mph on throws.

[billsredneck1]

5 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

what are you going to do with yourself when tyrod is gone?

[section122]

1 minute ago, twoandfourteen said:

 

 

This is the stuff I'm talking about. 

 

Sorry the 5th round rookie didn't come off the bench cold and step into the final seconds of a playoff game with everything on the line and get it done for you. 

 

To make this kind of dismissal on any player after such limited exposure is ridiculous. 

 

I don't particularly feel great about NP's ceiling -- he's probably a journeyman/spot starter at best. I wouldn't be surprised if he develops into a better overall QB than Tyrod Taylor eventually. Of course, that's not saying very much. 

 

If you make the "Tyrod doesn't have WRs!" or "Rick Dennison SUCKS!" arguments, then wouldn't those arguments stand as defense for Peterman as well? Maybe give him a shot to develop another year under a new OC? 

 

It's ridiculous to be so hyperbolic about his status in the league at this point in time.

 

I disagree whole-heartedly and I'll do you one better.  I knew after one half of the Chargers game that he has no shot in this league.  

 

What is ridiculous is saying he will be better than Tyrod.  What in the world have you seen to say that?  Is it because Tyrod is so bad in your opinion that anyone could be better?  We've seen across the league that isn't true.  Why do we need to wait another year to see what he has?  What are the chances that he could be good?  Seriously what percentage would you give him?  I would rather draft 2 qbs next year than see Peterman under center again.  I don't understand what people have seen from him to make them think he has a chance.  All I see is well Peyton was bad as a rookie or Big Ben had 5 picks in a game.  He is nowhere near the prospect as those guys nor does he have the resume to keep getting chances imo.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, billsredneck1 said:

what are you going to do with yourself when tyrod is gone?

 

Look forward to the draft just as you should. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, Woodman19 said:

I think the "Peterman hate" boils down to a few camps.

 

First you have the "not my QB" camp.  They are the people who wanted Watson, Mahomes and Kizer types. They take exception that he's not the guy they wanted and nothing is going to change that until Peterman shows he is a good QB.

 

Secondly you have the "Threat to Tyrod" fans.  These are the ones who no matter who we drafted would be at that QB because they are threats to steal his job and kick him off the team, it's less pronounced now then before (largely because of his own undoing) but that was a very vocal anti Peterman camp especially early.

 

Thirdly you have the "instant gratification" crowd. The you are only as good as your last drive types. To them it doesn't matter that you are a project, rookie or game situation.  If you aren't lighting it up then it's because you are awful.

 

Outside of those three groups you are going to have a few minor ones mixed in with the Boxscore scouts, Style, Tools and draft location people.  These are the ones where no matter what he does (even if he becomes Brady 2.0) will always hate him no matter what because of what he's not or where he was drafted.

 

 

Ummm...  while your breakdown may be true.... the one camp you’ve missed is this one:

 

—>We aren't so irrational as to think that rejecting  Peterman based on his game performance makes us infatuated with Tyrod.  Asserting a very, very limited QB albeit 22-20 on his career with over 9000 passing yards is the choice over a super raw rookie trick shot artist with a career 38.4 passer rating after almost 50 attempts who has looked over his head, reckless very turnover prone and panicky in game action isn’t all that polarizing.

 

We’ve seen poor QBs start, and then we have seen the worst... from Thad Lewis to Teul, to Trent to Hobert. All these “never will be’s” looked far better in their initial bought in front of the firing squad with in many cases even less pro experience. That is a pretty sound platform from which to estimate NP looks like one of the never will be’s. We’ve all seen this story and how it ends- NP looks the part so far in catastrophic fashion. 

[prissythecat]

31 minutes ago, twoandfourteen said:

 

So a rookie playing in his first ever game has LESS of a margin for error than a future Hall of Fame guy. Got it. 

 

Maybe, instead of excusing BR and condemning NP -- look at it like, "Well, 5 INT games are really bad -- but they happen sometimes, even to the best guys to ever play the game. So, its entirely conceivable for a rookie to have a meltdown like that. Maybe we should slow down and wait a little bit longer to see how he does next year?" 

 

But no. There's no learning curve allowed,  there's no such thing as "rookie mistakes" anymore. 

 

We'll still give Tyrod three full seasons to punt the ball away and maybe kick a FG if we're lucky all day long. All he needs are "more weapons" and a "better defense". 

 

I don't know what NP's going to be -- he could be out of the league in two years for all I care. I'm just blown away by the lack of any nuance when it comes to that guy. 

 

The continued comparison to Big Ben is just absurd.   The point is that Nate hasn't shown anything to date that he deserves to be a first stringer.    

 

Tyrod is likely gone for next season .  But he still performed better than Peterman in camp and thats why he was the designated the starter.  Peterman was given a chance after Tyrod fizzled.  But he crashed and burned with the worst ever first half performance by a QB in the modern era.

[Woodman19]

4 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

Ummm...  while your breakdown may be true.... the one camp you’ve missed is this one:

 

—>We aren't so irrational as to think that rejecting  Peterman based on his game performance makes us infatuated with Tyrod.  Asserting a very, very limited QB albeit 22-20 on his career with over 9000 passing yards is the choice over a super raw rookie trick shot artist with a career 38.4 passer rating after almost 50 attempts who has looked over his head, reckless very turnover prone and panicky in game action isn’t all that polarizing.

 

We’ve seen poor QBs start, and then we have seen the worst... from Thad Lewis to Teul, to Trent to Hobert. All these “never will be’s” looked far better in their initial bought in front of the firing squad with in many cases even less pro experience. That is a pretty sound platform from which to estimate NP looks like one of the never will be’s. We’ve all seen this story and how it ends- NP looks the part so far in catastrophic fashion. 

What have you done for me lately group.

[billsredneck1]

11 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Look forward to the draft just as you should. 

i will, but it's going to take a while to heal from yesterday's embarrassing offensive effort.

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, billsredneck1 said:

i will, but it's going to take a while to heal from yesterday's embarrassing offensive effort.

 

I understand where you're coming from. 

[twoandfourteen]

30 minutes ago, section122 said:

 

I disagree whole-heartedly and I'll do you one better.  I knew after one half of the Chargers game that he has no shot in this league.  

 

What is ridiculous is saying he will be better than Tyrod.  What in the world have you seen to say that?  Is it because Tyrod is so bad in your opinion that anyone could be better?  We've seen across the league that isn't true.  Why do we need to wait another year to see what he has?  What are the chances that he could be good?  Seriously what percentage would you give him?  I would rather draft 2 qbs next year than see Peterman under center again.  I don't understand what people have seen from him to make them think he has a chance.  All I see is well Peyton was bad as a rookie or Big Ben had 5 picks in a game.  He is nowhere near the prospect as those guys nor does he have the resume to keep getting chances imo.

 

Lots to unpack here. 

 

1. Again, this is the hyperbole I was referring to. No one KNOWS anything for certain. You might be right, or you might be wrong. You are basing your opinion on 1 half of football. I am basing mine on years and years of watching countless rookies develop. Some do, some don't. Won't know for a while. It's kind of a basic human characteristic that people are not as good at doing a thing when they first start, but then after a while they learn more about that thing and then are better at it. 

 

2. Considering that in his first season NP has already shown the ability to make certain throws that Taylor can't or won't in his 7th, it's not unreasonable to think that given time, he COULD (not WILL) possibly become a better QB simply by being able to potentially run a better passing offense. 

 

3. Two games under 100 passing yards (could have been 3, he had 74 going into the last minute of the CAR game). 11 of 17 under 200 passing yards. 4 games where he managed only a single FG. 3 years of a bottom-ranked passing offense. So, to answer your question -- yes, absolutely. Anyone could be better than Taylor. The only thing worse than Tyrod this season was a rookie who threw 5 INTs in his first start. 

 

4. It is true. The Bills passing offense under Tyrod Taylor was only 14 yards better than rookie Mitch Trubisky's Chicago offense. 

 

5. Because he is a rookie playing in a dysfunctional offense. 

 

6. I'm on board with this 100%. I'm not attached to Peterman by any stretch, I'm just saying you can't write him off after only this year. Draft 3 QBs. Draft all of them until you find one. 

 

7. It's not so much what we have seen from him, it's what we haven't seen from Taylor. Again, if TT can be a QB in the NFL, then it stands to reason that NP could carve out a career in the league, too. 

 

8. True. But he is still a rookie, and he doesn't "keep getting chances"... he's had two chances to start and was terrible in one and very good in the other under extreme circumstances. The Peyton and Roethlisberger points are only to keep things in perspective. If what happened to Peterman can happen to those guys it isn't all that unprecedented -- and that point is even more poignant specifically BECAUSE he is not the same player or prospect they are.

 

 

Anything else?

 

20 minutes ago, prissythecat said:

 

The continued comparison to Big Ben is just absurd.   The point is that Nate hasn't shown anything to date that he deserves to be a first stringer.    

 

Tyrod is likely gone for next season .  But he still performed better than Peterman in camp and thats why he was the designated the starter.  Peterman was given a chance after Tyrod fizzled.  But he crashed and burned with the worst ever first half performance by a QB in the modern era.

 

I agree with this. 

 

It's the "the guy doesn't belong on a roster" take that I think is ridiculous. 

 

The guy took his lumps in his first season. See what he does next year. If he responds and eventually becomes a quality reliable backup QB, then it was a great pickup in the 5th round. If he doesn't, then he joins that distinguished list of Bills punchlines at QB. 

Edited January 8, 2018 by twoandfourteen