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

[Hapless Bills Fan]

15 hours ago, Warcodered said:

I would like to think that another Quarterback would of come to the conclusion to take a sack before getting 5 interceptions.

 

This.

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

19 hours ago, Wily Dog said:

WHY:    The fullback did not catch a short pass over the middle and  the ball ricochet into an interception.. Two instances an offensive lineman not blocking a defensive end , resulting in two  interceptions.

(...)

It isn't always about the Facts.

 

First point: Folks do play fast and loose with the term "facts" these days.  It's a fact that the fullback did not catch a short pass, instead tipping the ball up so that it could be intercepted.  It's a fact that 4 other plays resulted in INTs.  It's not a "fact" that the OL not blocking the DE resulted in the INT - there are a number of other events in there, including the QB decision to try to throw the pass instead of flinging it away  or holding on to the ball for dear life. 

 

I saw the same 5 INTs, and in assigning responsibility for them, I expect I would put it in a different place.  That assessment would indicate we aren't talking facts here, we're talking judgement and interpretation. Sure DiMarco should have caught that pass, but it was clear he wasn't expecting it and it was  not thrown with touch.  I put that one at maybe 35-40% Peterman (decision to throw to a guy not expecting it/quality of throw) and 60-65% DiMarco.  I suspect you would assess it differently. 

 

To me, Lance Zierlein's pre-draft profile of Peterman called out everything I saw in that game: the tendency towards "hero ball" vs. throwing away or taking a sack; the lack of arm strength to throw into the tight windows he sees; decision making - the neurons firing to say "you can't do that, take the sack!" after the first 2 INTs, which is what happens with other rookie QB and prevents them setting INT records.

 

Now does that mean Peterman can't improve his judgement and his arm strength, or that he shouldn't get credit for how he's looked this preseason?  No, it doesn't.  But let's not excuse what happened with phony "facts".

[billsredneck1]

the bottom line is..the show ain't over until mcfat lady sings.  i am in the not start allen week 1 camp, because i believe...and i think i can speak for players and staff,

that winning games is more important than anything.

 

josh allen is going to have to close the gap on comp. percentage sunday. he will have to be pretty impressive in that category for me to want to throw him in week one.

he needs to show that he can complete well north of 60%.       imo, anything under 70% is not going to win regular season games.

 

also keep in mind that nate will be playing sunday as well and if he goes 8/10 or better again (showing a consistent pattern of being able to move the offense,) i believe the decision will still be undecided.

 

many here think that just because allen is getting the starts with the ones on sunday that it's automatic. i don't think it is in the coaches mind.

Edited August 25, 2018 by billsredneck1

[suorangefan4]

19 hours ago, Rocky Landing said:

 

I've said, much earlier in this thread, that the five picks Peterman threw only told part of the story. In the first half of that game, confusion reigned. When Tyrod came out in the second half, the entire offense (not just the line) looked like a different team. You say that has nothing to do with Peterman's leadership abilities. You say that it doesn't matter who the QB was-- that any other QB (other than Tyrod Taylor), under the same circumstances, would have failed just as spectacularly.

 

 

I have tried to get a response from someone for almost a year now on what QB could have done good in that game against the Chargers. I still have yet to get anything from anyone.

 

There were several players who pouted after Tyrod was benched. Then it looked like the whole team blatantly sabotaged Peterman.

 

Use this video as a reference and tell me what even Tom Brady would've done in that game. There were no receivers open. Peterman was getting drilled in a second from both sides on most of the plays. No QB could've done anything under those circumstances. The guy who made the video has awful commentary by the way.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 25, 2018 by suorangefan4

[prissythecat]

39 minutes ago, billsredneck1 said:

the bottom line is..the show ain't over until mcfat lady sings.  i am in the not start allen week 1 camp, because i believe...and i think i can speak for players and staff,

that winning games is more important than anything.

 

josh allen is going to have to close the gap on comp. percentage sunday. he will have to be pretty impressive in that category for me to want to throw him in week one.

he needs to show that he can complete well north of 60%.       imo, anything under 70% is not going to win regular season games..

 

 

I sure hope you are joking . How many QBs out there average 70% or more on completions ?  Maybe Brees did it one season?  

[BurpleBull]

42 minutes ago, billsredneck1 said:

the bottom line is..the show ain't over until mcfat lady sings.  i am in the not start allen week 1 camp, because i believe...and i think i can speak for players and staff,

that winning games is more important than anything.

 

josh allen is going to have to close the gap on comp. percentage sunday. he will have to be pretty impressive in that category for me to want to throw him in week one.

he needs to show that he can complete well north of 60%.       imo, anything under 70% is not going to win regular season games.

 

also keep in mind that nate will be playing sunday as well and if he goes 8/10 or better again (showing a consistent pattern of being able to move the offense,) i believe the decision will still be undecided.

 

many here think that just because allen is getting the starts with the ones on sunday that it's automatic. i don't think it is in the coaches mind.

 

I really don't know what's going on in the coaches' minds, their thought process on Allen and the QB position at this stage and I won't pretend to.

 

The start could mean there's a shift in how they feel about Allen's chances to succeed this early on as starter.

 

On the other hand, it could just be another methodical step in their process of bringing Allen along, which has no bearing on their ultimate decision.

 

Just have to wait and see.

 

All I can say with any certainty, is that Peterman has done his part up to this point.

 

[billsredneck1]

23 minutes ago, suorangefan4 said:

There were no receivers open.

did we actually have receivers playing that day?

[billsredneck1]

39 minutes ago, prissythecat said:

 

 

I sure hope you are joking . How many QBs out there average 70% or more on completions ?  Maybe Brees did it one season?  

no i'm not joking. two games in...nate is at 85% at 17/20.  he most definitely is capable of consistently putting together 7/10 or 8/10 drives.

he did it against the saints 7/10 td

did it against the colts  7/10  td

he's done it twice so far and once with the 3's for the win.

he's constantly put strings of 6-8 straight completions together throughout tc. i can't think of one qb who has been on this roster in more years that i can remember, that has been this accurate.....and gets the ball out in under 2 seconds.

 

please don't waste your time with the soft defenses or it's preseason.  i believe he's the kind of guy who can go  over 70%  24/32 over the course of a game is 75%

i believe he can consistently post those no.s.  keep in mind this is only my opinion based on what i see.

Edited August 25, 2018 by billsredneck1

[prissythecat]

26 minutes ago, billsredneck1 said:

no i'm not joking. two games in...nate is at 85% at 17/20.  he most definitely is capable of consistently putting together 7/10 or 8/10 drives.

he did it against the saints 7/10 td

did it against the colts  7/10  td

he's done it twice so far and once with the 3's for the win.

he's constantly put strings of 6-8 straight completions together throughout tc. i can't think of one qb who has been on this roster in more years that i can remember, that has been this accurate.....and gets the ball out in under 2 seconds.

 

please don't waste your time with the soft defenses or it's preseason.  i believe he's the kind of guy who can go  over 70%  24/32 over the course of a game is 75%

i believe he can consistently post those no.s.  keep in mind this is only my opinion based on what i see.

 

 

Can consistently post 24/32 ?  Let’s stop all the competition then .  I ll take that QB every day.  

[TheFunPolice]

I'm still convinced the starter will be Mccarron....

 

Worst choice of the 3 but it seems like he was with the 1s the most and is most likely to be nice and boring for a few games 

[Alphadawg7]

19 hours ago, Wily Dog said:

i was trying to convince you that it did not matter who the quarterback was for leadership because it was NOT a thing they could have done  , under the same circumstances . i apparently failed trying to explain it to you. Go off on another tirade if you want , i'm done answering your posts.

 

You don’t understand football.  What the D is doing, plays being called, schemes, etc is HIGHLY structured around who the QB is.  Had TT started they would have had called a completely different game plan having to account for his ability to run, escape, etc.  They don’t bring the house every snap because TT was a vet more capable of beating them in multiple ways.  With a 5th round noodle arm QB they brought everything at him because it was working and the kid was awful under pressure and he didn’t handle pressure well in college either.  They saw blood early and pounced.

 

Literally nothing you have said about that game has any sliver or realism in it.  The team looked different with TT in the 2nd half for a reason.  And that’s just part of how the game is different based on who starts.  

[Rocky Landing]

2 hours ago, suorangefan4 said:

 

I have tried to get a response from someone for almost a year now on what QB could have done good in that game against the Chargers. I still have yet to get anything from anyone.

 

There were several players who pouted after Tyrod was benched. Then it looked like the whole team blatantly sabotaged Peterman.

 

Use this video as a reference and tell me what even Tom Brady would've done in that game. There were no receivers open. Peterman was getting drilled in a second from both sides on most of the plays. No QB could've done anything under those circumstances. The guy who made the video has awful commentary by the way.

 

 

 

 

You need to take a step back from your narrative and really look at what you're saying. 

 

I've said since that day that the team played differently with Taylor than they did with Peterman. I've said since that day that they looked like a different team. The problem with your narrative is that you don't place any of that on Peterman, saying instead that the team was only willing to play for Taylor. 

 

So, I'll play your hypothetical within your narrative. But, I'm not going to go down the "Tom Brady" route. Instead, let's say we had Ryan Fitzpatrick back in the fold as our backup (that is, after all, what he is-- a career backup QB who will always be ready to take the reigns). It's week 11, against the Chargers, so he certainly has the playbook down, so there should be no excuses there. But, it is evident that the team is upset about the benching of Taylor. You're telling me that Fitz wouldn't have engaged the offense even before the game started to get them motivated to play? But, let's say that their poor attitude carries all the way over to the first offensive snap, and it is evident that the offense is not doing their jobs. Do you think that Fitz's leadership would have had no sway on that field? Do you think that Tom Brady's* leadership would have had no sway on that field?

 

The problem with your narrative is that you won't allow any of the blame for the performance of the offense to land on its on-field leader. If the offense, itself, were playing far worse under Nate Peterman than they were under Tyrod Taylor (and, they were. I was at Stubhub Stadium that day) how is that not a poor reflection on Nate Peterman? The five interceptions only tell half the story. The offense looked like a different team because Peterman did not have a command over the offense. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, billsredneck1 said:

the bottom line is..the show ain't over until mcfat lady sings.  i am in the not start allen week 1 camp, because i believe...and i think i can speak for players and staff,

that winning games is more important than anything.

 

josh allen is going to have to close the gap on comp. percentage sunday. he will have to be pretty impressive in that category for me to want to throw him in week one.

he needs to show that he can complete well north of 60%.       imo, anything under 70% is not going to win regular season games.

 

also keep in mind that nate will be playing sunday as well and if he goes 8/10 or better again (showing a consistent pattern of being able to move the offense,) i believe the decision will still be undecided.

 

many here think that just because allen is getting the starts with the ones on sunday that it's automatic. i don't think it is in the coaches mind.

Well, the Patriots* better get rid of that bum, Tom Brady*. His 2017 completion percentage was only 66.3%.

Edited August 25, 2018 by Rocky Landing

[Wily Dog]

Well I sure made the Peterman haters show their colors this past week or so. So...... on to the season with Josh and Nate . Go Bills !!!

[billsredneck1]

53 minutes ago, Wily Dog said:

Well I sure made the Peterman haters show their colors this past week or so. So...... on to the season with Josh and Nate . Go Bills !!!

or nate and josh....? either way...the first 2 games are the most important of the season. theses games will be the deciding factor as to the post season.

they gotta get it right....and they can always change from nate to josh. if the rookie gets thrashed and especially in front of the home crowd and throws picks against the bolts, it could cause a lot of damage.

 

tbd will have to make a support section for all the ....well....ya'll know who you are.

[Rocky Landing]

1 hour ago, Wily Dog said:

Well I sure made the Peterman haters show their colors this past week or so. So...... on to the season with Josh and Nate . Go Bills !!!

Congrats.

[reddogblitz]

11 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Peterman should be a fine backup. 

 

No. A fine backup is someone like Nick Foles or Earl Moral of Jeff Hostettler.

 

 

[billsredneck1]

2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

you don’t understand football.  What the D is doing, plays being called, schemes, etc is HIGHLY structured around who the QB is.  Had TT started they would have had called a completely different game plan having to account for his ability to run, escape, etc.  They don’t bring the house every snap because TT was a vet more capable of beating them in multiple ways.  With a 5th round noodle arm QB they brought everything at him because it was working and the kid was awful under pressure and he didn’t handle pressure well in college either.  They saw blood early and pounced.

 

Literally nothing you have said about that game has any sliver or realism in it.  The team looked different with TT in the 2nd half for a reason.  And that’s just part of how the game is different based on who starts.  

if i may..genius football guru, what makes you think that balt. won't stack the box to stop the run?....then bring the heat on josh and make THE ROOKIE beat them with his arm...and try to get some ducks thrown?  you really are ahead of the curve.

 

as soon as they see josh, oh they will back off and play 2 deep and hope to press man at the line.  they will/better play it safe....ok.  hopefully the chargers take a page out of that book.?

 

i figured i better edit this and give the credit to steve tasker for making this point on one bills live....but what does he know right? him and that gigundus helmet

....lol?

Edited August 25, 2018 by billsredneck1

[transplantbillsfan]

2 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

No. A fine backup is someone like Nick Foles or Earl Moral of Jeff Hostettler.

 

 

 

C'mon now... trying to make a little peaceful compromise here

[reddogblitz]

39 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

C'mon now... trying to make a little peaceful compromise here

 

"The most important position is QB. The second most important position is backup QB. " --Joe Gibbs

 

Nasty Nate will be a fine backup if he pulls a Thigpen (never plays).

[transplantbillsfan]

7 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

"The most important position is QB. The second most important position is backup QB. " --Joe Gibbs

 

Nasty Nate will be a fine backup if he pulls a Thigpen (never plays).

 

No one ever wants the backup to play.

 

I hope Allen has Favre-like durability and toughness so that whoever our backup QB is will be fine.

Edited August 25, 2018 by transplantbillsfan