Prediction: Nathan Peterman Bills Starting QB Wk. 1 vs. Ravens

[reddogblitz]

18 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

He had a good drive, down 40 something, against a team playing vanilla defense.  

 

Otherwise known as "garbage time" unless it's somebody we like.  Fitz was good in garbage time.

[BurpleBull]

16 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

He had a good drive, down 40 something, against a team playing vanilla defense. 

 

He was 5-10 for 50 yards in a score vs. the Colts. I realize that the conditions were tough but that’s no better than acceptable.

 

In the playoffs he played like 4 snaps. He threw an INT, fumbled and got called for intentional grounding. That was “making it happen?” 

 

We must have been watching different games. Are people so desperate for a “franchise QB” that they were impressed by that?!? I saw more than enough. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. I wasn’t wrong about Tuel, Levi Brown or Brohm though.

 

I don't know if you've taken "make things happen" out of its original context. Trying to make things happen, as in he was doing his best to get the offense going (ex., entering the game and picking up the first down on 4th down to extend the drive).

 

He pressed the issue, and paid for it in instances during those games.

 

We already have a QB in that franchise mold, in Josh Allen, so I can't be desperate for one.

 

We were watching the same game I promise you, but of course you'd see a rookie going 5-10 and a completing a nice back shoulder throw for a TD as not very impressive if that rookie is named Nathan Peterman.

 

You were right about Tuel, Brohm, and Brown. I was right about the hire of Sean McDermott during the coaching search. I also spoke about drafting Peterman and it happened. I think Peterman has a shot at starting week one.

 

We'll see how it plays out.

[JohnC]

2 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

That's about what Brian Brohm and Cardale Jones got.

 

Bills fans are already calling for Allen to start, so we win

The next stage is which HC inserts the rookie into the starting lineup. ?

4 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

That reasoning doesn't really work though. Benching the starter doesn't do anyone any good if the replacement isn't better. That goes for all positions. The Bills gained nothing by starting Peterman. You can't excuse their decision by saying Tyrod was playing bad. Replacing bad with historically bad is not something that can be excused. It was a poor decision and deserves to be criticized as such.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with you. When your starting qb struggled for multiple consecutive games and is incapable of running a pro offense I have no problem with trying the next option. It didn't work out. So what? At least you tried something to alter the unacceptable level of play. The prior regime wanted TT gone and the next regime not traded him. Last year is over with. It's time to move on from that issue. Peterman will be competing for a backup job. If he doesn't show enough he will be moved out. 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, BurpleBull said:

 

I don't know if you've taken "make things happen" out of its original context. Trying to make things happen, as in he was doing his best to get the offense going (ex., entering the game and picking up the first down on 4th down to extend the drive).

 

He pressed the issue, and paid for it in instances during those games.

 

We already have a QB in that franchise mold, in Josh Allen, so I can't be desperate for one.

 

We were watching the same game I promise you, but of course you'd see a rookie going 5-10 and a completing a nice back shoulder throw for a TD as not very impressive if that rookie is named Nathan Peterman.

 

You were right about Tuel, Brohm, and Brown. I was right about the hire of Sean McDermott during the coaching search. I also spoke about drafting Peterman and it happened. I think Peterman has a shot at starting week one.

 

We'll see how it plays out.

I don’t think I’d ever say 5-10 for 50 yards and a TD was a great half. I’d call it acceptable. That was his best performance. That was the only time he had any sort of success in real game action. 

 

If you wanted Peterman drafted I get why you are sticking by him. I was fine with the pick and thought he had a chance to be a number 2 in this league. By all accounts (except Gunner and Blokes) he was smart and accurate. It turns out he wasn’t accurate, lacks the arm strength to fit balls into tight windows and crumbles under pressure. I guess we will watch it play out but I’m really glad that I got even money on Allen vs. Peterman opening day.

[Kirby Jackson]

32 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

It won't be Peterman or Allen, IMO.

 

McCarron will start most of the season barring injury. 

Agreed (it’s a no bet if it’s McCarron)

[HappyDays]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with you. When your starting qb struggled for multiple consecutive games and is incapable of running a pro offense I have no problem with trying the next option. It didn't work out. So what? At least you tried something to alter the unacceptable level of play

 

That's where we disagree. Trying means nothing to me. I look for results, not effort. It is not enough to merely try something different if it totally fails. I've gotten into a similar debate about picking EJ Manuel. Some people still think that was a good pick because "at least the Bills went for a 1st round QB." But it was a terrible pick! And starting Peterman over Tyrod in those circumstances was a terrible choice. I don't subscribe to the addition by subtraction mantra. Replacing someone only works if their replacement is better, or at least promising. It's different when you're out of the playoff race because then the results don't matter, but as long as the results do matter I'm going to judge any decision by how it turns out. Decisions made in desperation are usually bad. Being desperate for better QB play was not an excuse. And I'm guessing McDermott agrees with me because he fired Dennison when the season was over.

[grb]

3 hours ago, JohnC said:

The next stage is which HC inserts the rookie into the starting lineup. ?

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with you. When your starting qb struggled for multiple consecutive games and is incapable of running a pro offense I have no problem with trying the next option. It didn't work out. So what? At least you tried something to alter the unacceptable level of play. The prior regime wanted TT gone and the next regime not traded him. Last year is over with. It's time to move on from that issue. Peterman will be competing for a backup job. If he doesn't show enough he will be moved out. 

 

Bills fans understandably like and appreciate McDermott. You see that in their flimsy excuses for the Peterman Debacle like above. McDermott didn't bench Taylor because of "multiple consecutive games ..... incapable of running a pro offense"; he did so because of four straight games in which his defense (SM is a defense-minded coach) gave up the most yards in the NFL. You'll say that's irrational and you'll be right, but it's a fact. McDermott had no fix for the team's defense, so decided to throw dice on the offense instead. Taylor was benched after one bad game which was preceded by three good performances. Again, that sounds crazy (particularly given who was waiting in the wings), but that's what happened. The three games which preceded the Taylor's poor showing vs the Saints :

• Jets :        29/40  72.5%  285 yds  7.1 ypa  2 tds  0 ints  108.9 rating
• Raiders :  20/27  74.0%  165 yds  6.1 ypa  1 tds  0 ints  101.6 rating
• Bucs :      20/33  60.6%  268 yds   8.1 ypa  1 tds  0 ints    96.5 rating

To forestall the inevitable bad arguments :

• Somebody will claim TT's Jets number were all "garbage time", which is garbage. His first half numbers were 15/11 76.6%  115 yds 7.7 ypa 1 td. Mind you, this was while being hammered by a pass rush in his face as he set to throw
• Someone will point out the Bills lost the Jets game. This isn't surprising as barely any Bill showed up to play. Taylor did, and he played well.
• Someone will still excuse the imbecilic decision to start Peterman by saying Taylor just had too many bad games. 

Really? Let's look at another player

• Panthers : 12 att   09 yds  0.75 ypa
• Broncos  :  14 att  21 yds  1.50 ypa
• Jets         :  12 att  25 yds  2.08 ypa
• Chiefs     :   22 att  49 yds  2.23 ypa
• Dolphins :   20 att  50 yds  2.50 ypa
• Dolphins :   11 att 10 yds   0.91 ypa

The last game McCoy was injured, so that's not fair. But since you can't run without holes to run thru, the same is true for the rest of the stats as well. Of course you can say likewise about throwing to cripples, cast-offs, and a rookie like a deer in the headlights, couldn't you? Two things are certain : Tolbert wasn't going to run for more yards than McCoy behind that line, and Peterman wasn't going to throw for more yards that Taylor in that offense.

 

Kinda of makes the decision to start him pretty stupid, doesn't it?

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by grb

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Does Tyrod count as a guy unchallenged?   

 

His challengers were EJ and Meh Cassel.  

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, grb said:

 

Bills fans understandably like and appreciate McDermott. You see that in flimsy excuses for the Peterman Blunder like above. McDermott didn't bench Taylor because of "multiple consecutive games ..... incapable of running a pro offense"; he did so because of four straight games in which his defense (SM is a defense-minded coach) gave up the most yards in the NFL. You will say that's irrational and you'll be right, but that's what happened. McDermott had no fix for the teams defense, so decided to throw the dice on the offense instead. Taylor was benched after one bad game which was preceded by three good performances. Again, that seems crazy (particularly given who was waiting in the wings) but that's the facts. The three games which preceded the Taylor's poor showing vs the Saints :

• Jets :        29/40  72.5%  285 yds  7.1 ypa  2 tds  0 ints  108.9 rating
• Raiders :  20/27  74.0%  165 yds  6.1 ypa  1 tds  0 ints  101.6 rating
• Bucs :      20/33  60.6%  268 yds   8.1 ypa  1 tds  0 ints    96.5 rating

To forestall the inevitable bad arguments :

• Somebody will claim TT's Jets number were all "garbage time", which is garbage. His first half numbers were 15/11 76.6%  115 yds 7.7 ypa 1 td. Mind you, this was while he was being hammered by a pass rush in his face as he set to throw
• Someone will point out the Bills lost the Jets game. This isn't surprising as barely any Bill showed up to play. Taylor did, and he played well.
• Someone will still excuse the imbecilic decision to start Peterman by saying Taylor just had too many bad games. 

Really? Let's look at another player

• Panthers : 12 att   09 yds    0.75 ypa
• Broncos  :  14 att  21 yds  1.50 ypa
• Jets         :  12 att  25 yds  2.08 ypa
• Chiefs     :   22 att  49 yds  2.23 ypa
• Dolphins :   20 att  50 yds  2.50 ypa
• Dolphins :   11 att 10 yds   0.91 ypa

The last game McCoy was injured so that's not fair. But since you can't run without holes to run thru, the same is true for the rest of the stats as well. Of course you could say the same thing about throwing to cripples, cast-offs, and a rookie like a deer in the headlights, couldn't you? Two things are certain : Tolbert wasn't going to run for more yards than McCoy behind that line, and Peterman wasn't going to throw for more yards that Taylor in that offense.

 

Kinda of makes the decision to start him pretty stupid, doesn't it?

You can embrace any stats you want. I don't give a dam. The reality was that Taylor struggled for a string a games, and more importantly he couldn't run a pro offense. Go back and watch the Jacksonville game. That was a display of qb futility at an exponentially atrocious level. The fact is that the running qb was dealt and the young qb was kept. You may be satisfied with Pop Warner quarterbacking but I wasn't. I wish Taylor the best. He is a fine fellow and deserves to be placed in a better situation. On the other hand I'm ecstatic that I don't have to watch that type of unpalatable football any longer. 

 

If you are so enamored with him you can watch the Cleveland games. If that is the case then you better watch the early season games because in the not too distant future Mayfield will replace him as the starter.  

[grb]

7 minutes ago, JohnC said:

You can embrace any stats you want. I don't give a dam. The reality was that Taylor struggled for a string a games, and more importantly he couldn't run a pro offense. Go back and watch the Jacksonville game. That was a display of qb futility at an exponentially atrocious level. The fact is that the running qb was dealt and the young qb was kept. You may be satisfied with Pop Warner quarterbacking but I wasn't. I wish Taylor the best. He is a fine fellow and deserves to be placed in a better situation. On the other hand I'm ecstatic that I don't have to watch that type of unpalatable football any longer. 

 

If you are so enamored with him you can watch the Cleveland games. If that is the case then you better watch the early season games because in the not too distant future Mayfield will replace him as the starter.  

 

• Yes, you don't give a damn about the facts
• "Couldn't run a pro offense" is just something you made up
• Taylor didn't "struggle for a string of games". You made that up too.
• Like they could deal Peterman to anybody for anything?!?!

 

We'll be back here after the season begins, endlessly debating the same subject - perhaps even weekly.

I look forward to it. 

 

 

Edited May 31, 2018 by grb

[JohnC]

33 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

That's where we disagree. Trying means nothing to me. I look for results, not effort. It is not enough to merely try something different if it totally fails. I've gotten into a similar debate about picking EJ Manuel. Some people still think that was a good pick because "at least the Bills went for a 1st round QB." But it was a terrible pick! And starting Peterman over Tyrod in those circumstances was a terrible choice. I don't subscribe to the addition by subtraction mantra. Replacing someone only works if their replacement is better, or at least promising. It's different when you're out of the playoff race because then the results don't matter, but as long as the results do matter I'm going to judge any decision by how it turns out. Decisions made in desperation are usually bad. Being desperate for better QB play was not an excuse. And I'm guessing McDermott agrees with me because he fired Dennison when the season was over.

The truth of the matter is that this Taylor vs Peterman debate is irrelevant to the Bills of today. Last year was last year. This regime demonstrated seriousness when they got rid of their floundering former starter and invested heavily in getting Josh Allen. That's the substantive issue here. Peterman at best is a backup. Whether he should have replaced Taylor or not is an issue that has lost its shelf life. 

 

I admired and liked Taylor as a person. However, he is a functional qb at best. He as a  starter represented the same wretched mediocrity that had kept this franchise mired in irrelevance for a generation. While others criticized McDermott for starting Peterman in the Charger game, I have no criticism for that decision. In hindsight making that change for that one game made no difference on how the season played. 

7 minutes ago, grb said:

 

• Yes, you don't give a damn about the facts
• "Couldn't run a pro offense" is just something you made up
• Taylor didn't "struggle for a string of games". You made that up too.
• Like they could deal Peterman to anybody for anything?!?!

 

We'll be back here after the season begins, endlessly debating the same subject - perhaps even weekly.

I look forward to it. 

 

 

We won't be debating the Taylor issue any longer because he is another team's temporary starter. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

The truth of the matter is that this Taylor vs Peterman debate is irrelevant to the Bills of today. Last year was last year. This regime demonstrated seriousness when they got rid of their floundering former starter and invested heavily in getting Josh Allen. That's the substantive issue here. Peterman at best is a backup. Whether he should have replaced Taylor or not is an issue that has lost its shelf life. 

 

I admired and liked Taylor as a person. However, he is a functional qb at best. He as a  starter represented the same wretched mediocrity that had kept this franchise mired in irrelevance for a generation. While others criticized McDermott for starting Peterman in the Charger game, I have no criticism for that decision. In hindsight making that change for that one game made no difference on how the season played. 

We won't be debating the Taylor issue any longer because he is another team's temporary starter. 

 

You won’t but the ever faithful will.  

 

Which is why I have the ever faithful on ignore 

[mileena]

On 5/21/2018 at 3:16 PM, BurpleBull said:

Nathan Peterman will win the starting QB position barring injury. He'll be much improved from last season.

 

Excited about Josh Allen as the starting QB, but Peterman is the guy people aren't talking about right now who will have everyone talking by the end of training camp.

 

He's worked on his mechanics, is said to have added velocity to his throws, has a lot to prove and is no stranger to struggling early in his career and picking himself up.

 

A little talked about fact concerning Peterman is that he's right up there with Allen as Bills QB's who've scored high on the Wonderlic test for those who equate the test to mental sharpness.

 

I still hold to the belief that Peterman was at the very least a third round prospect in his draft class.

 

Peterman will be the guy.

 

So this is how I have it panning out... 

 

1. Peterman

 

2. McCarron

 

3. Allen

 

With Allen at three for his protection as he starts out his young career.

 

Peterman is a BUST. You don't recover from throwing 5 interceptions in your first start.

[Kirby Jackson]

3 minutes ago, mileena said:

 

Peterman is a BUST. You don't recover from throwing 5 interceptions in your first start.

You can’t be a “bust” if 190 guys were picked before you. Longshots cant bust; they can just be “not good.” Cary Harris wasn’t a bust. He was a bad football player.

[BurpleBull]

1 minute ago, mileena said:

 

Peterman is a BUST. You don't recover from throwing 5 interceptions in your first start.

 

I don't think that's the case at all. 

 

I was checking to see how he would respond after that.

 

I thought he played pretty well against the Patriots.

 

Division rivals, I believe on the road, a rookie showcasing himself against a "Tom Terrific" led ball club and he played within himself.

 

Didn't dazzle but also didn't show signs of a player overwhelmed by the stage or show signs of a player consumed by thoughts of the LAC game.

 

Overlooked by others I'm sure, but that says something to me. He stated that he had put the horrific game behind him and learned from it and it proved to be true words and not just lipservice.

 

His last regular game he threw for a TD. No Ints that game or in the one prior.

 

I detected no lingering effects of the Chargers game.

[JohnC]

14 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

You won’t but the ever faithful will.  

 

Which is why I have the ever faithful on ignore 

There is a mythology about this player that I don't understand.  I trust my eyes. What I see is far different from what many others are seeing. This fictitious nostalgia is baffling to me. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

There is a mythology about this player that I don't understand.  I trust my eyes. What I see is far different from what many others are seeing. This fictitious nostalgia is baffling to me. 

WRT stats.....  

keep thinking of that song 

 

We won’t get fooled again!

 

[grb]

6 minutes ago, BurpleBull said:

 

I don't think that's the case at all. 

 

I was checking to see how he would respond after that.

 

I thought he played pretty well against the Patriots.

 

Division rivals, I believe on the road, a rookie showcasing himself against a "Tom Terrific" led ball club and he played within himself.

 

Didn't dazzle but also didn't show signs of a player overwhelmed by the stage or show signs of a player consumed by thoughts of the LAC game.

 

Overlooked by others I'm sure, but that says something to me. He stated that he had put the horrific game behind him and learned from it and it proved to be true words and not just lipservice.

 

His last regular game he threw for a TD. No Ints that game or in the one prior.

 

I detected no lingering effects of the Chargers game.

 

Peterman, post-Chargers :

• Patriots :  6/15  40%  50 yds  3.3 ypa  0 tds  0 int 
• Colts      :  5/10  50%  57 yds  5.7 ypa  1 td    0 int  1 fumble
• Jags      :  1/3     33%  14 yds  4.7 ypa  0 td    1 int  1 fumble   1 intentional grounding  (in four plays, no less)

Sir, you are an inspiration to glass-half-full people everywhere !!!

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

I just figured this post out.... Nate Peterman actually could week 1 against the ravens....  the South Carolina ravens... it implies there is a good hunch which arena team he will land on AND the schedule for next season

[BurpleBull]

30 minutes ago, grb said:

 

Peterman, post-Chargers :

• Patriots :  6/15  40%  50 yds  3.3 ypa  0 tds  0 int 
• Colts      :  5/10  50%  57 yds  5.7 ypa  1 td    0 int  1 fumble
• Jags      :  1/3     33%  14 yds  4.7 ypa  0 td    1 int  1 fumble   1 intentional grounding  (in four plays, no less)

Sir, you are an inspiration to glass-half-full people everywhere !!!

 

What's the meaning of it?

 

Those are rookie numbers. Nothing there that leads me to believe that the LAC game had a lasting negative impact on him.

[reddogblitz]

9 minutes ago, BurpleBull said:

 

What's the meaning of it?

 

Those are rookie numbers. Nothing there that leads me to believe that the LAC game had a lasting negative impact on him.

 

Coming into a playoff game and fumbling, causing a penalty, and throwing a pick in a span of 4 plays looked like either lasting negative or more of the same negative.

Edited May 31, 2018 by reddogblitz

[BuffaloBillsGospel]

Not sure why people think McCarron has the best chance, dude started 3  games. Is he some Wiley veteran after those games? This is Allen's job to lose imo. He has to beat out 2 noodle armed QBs.

Edited May 31, 2018 by BuffaloBillsGospel

[reddogblitz]

1 minute ago, BuffaloBillsGospel said:

Not sure why people think McCarron has the best chance, dude started 3  games. Is he some Wiley veteran after those games? This is Allen's job to lose imo. He has to beat out 2 noodle armed QBs.

 

I don't know.  Based on everything I've read, seen, heard, and watched Josh do in college games points to him being a Project (note the capital P).  He should be treated as such.  What's the big hurry?  The kid will soon be under contract for 4 or 5 years. He ain't goin' anywhere. 

 

I kind of think that as long as AJ doesn't out and out stink, they'll follow the process and let the kid learn from film and practice until he's ready.

[Hanoverbills]

17 hours ago, mileena said:

 

Peterman is a BUST. You don't recover from throwing 5 interceptions in your first start.

His first game in college was similar and he still had a productive college career. You guys give up to early on QBs. Some QBs take longer to develop than others. You know Troy Aikmans first year in the pros,  Dallas only won one game that year and that game Aikman didn't even play. He was 0 for 11 as a starter that year  and had only 9 tds and 18 int.  And second year wasn't much better 11 tds and 18 int. I not saying Petterson is Aikman, but if Aikman was in Buffalo  his rookie year , you guys would be calling him a bust and  there would be a thousand replies on why we should be getting rid of him. What I'm trying to say you can't judge a guy after one or two games. I don't care if he is first rd or 5th rd. You got give him longer time. Maybe he works out  or maybe he won't. We got Allen know and maybe he starts out like Aikman .  If he does, I hope you'll give him more time to develope before your ready to kick him to the curve.

[BurpleBull]

22 minutes ago, Hanoverbills said:

His first game in college was similar and he still had a productive college career. You guys give up to early on QBs. Some QBs take longer to develop than others. You know Troy Aikmans first year in the pros,  Dallas only won one game that year and that game Aikman didn't even play. He was 0 for 11 as a starter that year  and had only 9 tds and 18 int.  And second year wasn't much better 11 tds and 18 int. I not saying Petterson is Aikman, but if Aikman was in Buffalo  his rookie year , you guys would be calling him a bust and  there would be a thousand replies on why we should be getting rid of him. What I'm trying to say you can't judge a guy after one or two games. I don't care if he is first rd or 5th rd. You got give him longer time. Maybe he works out  or maybe he won't. We got Allen know and maybe he starts out like Aikman .  If he does, I hope you'll give him more time to develope before your ready to kick him to the curve.

 

Oh...just wait until Allen has his first multi-interception game, with no TDs, in a losing effort.

 

The same using Allen's upside to throw shade at Peterman and this thread will be the same ones professing that the FO got the draft wrong with the first pick.

 

[Kirby Jackson]

4 minutes ago, BurpleBull said:

 

Oh just wait until Allen has his first multi-interception game.

 

The same using Allen's upside to throw shade at Peterman and this thread will be the same ones professing that the FO got the draft wrong with the first pick.

I won’t. I’m on record as saying that guys with more talent get more chances. There’s a reason that Jeff Tuel started 1 game and JP Losman started 33. Neither was very good but you are going to give a longer leash to a guy with ability. Someone referenced Troy Aikman above. He was the 1st overall pick!! Josh Allen will be given a lot more chances than Nathan Peterman will be. That’s the difference between the 7th pick and the 191st pick.

[Rocky Landing]

22 minutes ago, BurpleBull said:

 

Oh...just wait until Allen has his first multi-interception game, with no TDs, in a losing effort.

 

The same using Allen's upside to throw shade at Peterman and this thread will be the same ones professing that the FO got the draft wrong with the first pick.

 

I think we have a crystal clear understanding of your agenda. Between the bolded statement above, and your admission that you were predicting the Bills would draft Peterman, you have pretty much shown your hand. 

 

I mentioned earlier that this reminded me of the EJ debate. But, the EJ fanatics had a lot more to go on than you. Don’t expect a lot of company on your crusade, which I predict will be short-lived. 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Rocky Landing

[Ramza86]

Well in Petermans case hes pretty much seen the worst hes going to see as a rookie. 

 

If hes has any good QB in him he will take last year as a learning experience and grow from it. He wasnt some 8 year vet playing like that. He was a rookie. Rookies learn and usually end up getting better....how much better is up to him.

[26CornerBlitz]

2 minutes ago, Ramza86 said:

Well in Petermans case hes pretty much seen the worst hes going to see as a rookie. 

 

If hes has any good QB in him he will take last year as a learning experience and grow from it. He wasnt some 8 year vet playing like that. He was a rookie. Rookies learn and usually end up getting better....how much better is up to him.

 

They do?  

 

[Ramza86]

1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

They do?  

 

 

uhhh yeah. literally just by adjusting to NFL level physicality a rookie has improved from his rookie year.

 

there are many different levels of improvement. 

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Ramza86 said:

 

uhhh yeah. literally just by adjusting to NFL level physicality a rookie has improved from his rookie year.

 

there are many different levels of improvement. 

 

Plenty of late round picks get cut and bounce around the league after initially making it.  Not sure how you can justify that statement. 

[Ramza86]

2 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Plenty of late round picks get cut and bounce around the league after initially making it.  Not sure how you can justify that statement. 

 

Better player doesnt mean good enough player. 

[mileena]

Peterman's career is done. It's over. You never recover from throwing 5 picks in one half, even a seasoned veteran. Mentally, the effects are devastating. Jay Schroeder, a Pro Bowl QB, threw 5 picks in the 1990 AFC Championship vs Buffalo, and he never recovered. Went from a career high 90.8 QB rating that year to 71.4 in 1991 and never higher again.

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SchrJa00.htm

[Ramza86]

9 minutes ago, mileena said:

Peterman's career is done. It's over. You never recover from throwing 5 picks in one half, even a seasoned veteran. Mentally, the effects are devastating. Jay Schroeder, a Pro Bowl QB, threw 5 picks in the 1990 AFC Championship vs Buffalo, and he never recovered. Went from a career high 90.8 QB rating that year to 71.4 in 1991 and never higher again.

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/SchrJa00.htm

 

lol, its not likely peterman will recover...but thats on the individual, we cant just say anyone who throws 5 picks is done.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Just now, Ramza86 said:

 

lol, its not likely peterman will recover...but thats on the individual, we cant just say anyone who throws 5 picks is done.

That^.

 

Anyone who does research will tell you 5 INTs have been thrown by multiple HOF QB’s

 

It does come down to the individual.  

[Alphadawg7]

How does a future PS player have a 17 page thread about him being predicted as a starter?  LMAO

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

2 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

How does a future PS player have a 17 page thread about him being predicted as a starter?  LMAO

It’s the offseason.   

 

[Alphadawg7]

2 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

It’s the offseason.   

 

 

Touche ha

[reddogblitz]

59 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Anyone who does research will tell you 5 INTs have been thrown by multiple HOF QBs

 

How many did it in one half before getting unceremoniously benched?

[ColoradoBills]

8 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

How many did it in one half before getting unceremoniously benched?

 

I would think 0.  By the way I really like your new Avatar!