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

[Chilly]

I think the biggest thing is the Bills need to declare a winner between AJ and NP, even if it's just internally. Demote one to running with the 3rd string, make sure you're planned 1st string guy gets enough reps, run Allen with the 2s unless he ends up killing it the rest of camp and you start him.

[Ittakestime]

The truth of the matter is, if Peterman was drafted by last regime, he would have been off this team already. The guy can't play in NFL. I have no idea why he is given so much opportunity here. His arm is really bad and he is predictable with his throwing. It would be nice if we have a different guy in here with a legit chance at winning us games. 

[ColoradoBills]

10 hours ago, Chilly said:

I think the biggest thing is the Bills need to declare a winner between AJ and NP, even if it's just internally. Demote one to running with the 3rd string, make sure you're planned 1st string guy gets enough reps, run Allen with the 2s unless he ends up killing it the rest of camp and you start him.

 

I think that day is coming fast, maybe by this coming weekend.

Edited August 5, 2018 by ColoradoBills

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

On 8/3/2018 at 11:30 AM, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Always been fine with McCarron if he wins the job, I just think (and prefer) Allen will end up winning it because he'll just progress and outshine the other 2 guys.

 

....don't see it as being that clear cut.....NOT saying McCarron or Peterman are expendable ala "guinea pigs"......but with the OL in the state of development/flux, same for the WR corp anointed as "THE worst in the league" by some, as well as RB's AFTER Shady particularly from a blocking perspective, McD may want to see those elements face "live ammo" before throwing the hopefully franchise QB out there for target practice.....just an unsubstantiated hunch/opinion.....

[26CornerBlitz]

13 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

....don't see it as being that clear cut.....NOT saying McCarron or Peterman are expendable ala "guinea pigs"......but with the OL in the state of development/flux, same for the WR corp anointed as "THE worst in the league" by some, as well as RB's AFTER Shady particularly from a blocking perspective, McD may want to see those elements face "live ammo" before throwing the hopefully franchise QB out there for target practice.....just an unsubstantiated hunch/opinion.....

 

None of those factors will determine whether Allen starts.  The team will not "protect" him due to any perceived positional deficiencies on offense.  He'll either start or not based on the merits of his own readiness.

Edited August 5, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz

[Fadingpain]

20 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:

 

I think that day is coming fast, maybe by this weekend.

Why?  I realize it's important to make 1 guy "the guy" so he gets the work he needs to continue to develop, but you don't need to "declare" anyone "the guy" just yet.

 

Seems like we have until at least the first preseason game for everyone to be a "No.1" at least in theory.

 

 

[ColoradoBills]

1 minute ago, Fadingpain said:

Why?  I realize it's important to make 1 guy "the guy" so he gets the work he needs to continue to develop, but you don't need to "declare" anyone "the guy" just yet.

 

Seems like we have until at least the first preseason game for everyone to be a "No.1" at least in theory.

 

 

 

That's why I said "maybe" by this weekend (after the 1st preseason game).

I'll edit it to say "this coming weekend".

 

That being said it may take another week if no one QB stands out.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

2 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

None of those factors will determine whether Allen starts.  The team will not "protect" him due to any perceived positional deficiencies at other positions on offense.  He'll either start or not based on the merits of his own readiness.

 

.....difference of opinion which makes this place work thankfully......we differ from the perspective that I think McD will take ALL factors into consideration.....certainly the Ravens opener is win "at all (most) costs"......BUT.......McD may choose to get a look at his OL, WR's and RB blockers with AJ at the helm.....stay tuned...........

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

.....difference of opinion which makes this place work thankfully......we differ from the perspective that I think McD will take ALL factors into consideration.....certainly the Ravens opener is win "at all (most) costs"......BUT.......McD may choose to get a look at his OL, WR's and RB blockers with AJ at the helm.....stay tuned...........

 

It's not a difference of opinion. It's what Beane stated on the record regarding the plan for Allen. 

[Bangarang]

44 minutes ago, Ittakestime said:

The truth of the matter is, if Peterman was drafted by last regime, he would have been off this team already. The guy can't play in NFL. I have no idea why he is given so much opportunity here. His arm is really bad and he is predictable with his throwing. It would be nice if we have a different guy in here with a legit chance at winning us games. 

 

I don’t think this is true at all. The current regime has shown they are not afraid of getting rid of players, especially ones brought on by the last regime. They obviously like Peterman.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

11 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

It's not a difference of opinion. It's what Beane stated on the record regarding the plan for Allen. 

 

 

...public and private can be a world of difference.....as in how he showed his cards "pre-draft", right??.......just sayin'......

[Rocky Landing]

47 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

I don’t think this is true at all. The current regime has shown they are not afraid of getting rid of players, especially ones brought on by the last regime. They obviously like Peterman.

I think they do, too. I even find myself giving him more of the benefit of the doubt as a result of their continued faith in him-- and I have been an unforgiving Peterman hater up to this point (mostly because I was at that Chargers game-- I spent good money on those seats!) 

 

But, I also believe that they keep Peterman based on Allen's readiness. If, by the final cut, they aren't comfortable with Allen running an NFL offense, they'll keep Peterman as a back-up (assuming McCarron is the starter). If Allen wins the job, or if they would be comfortable with him as backup, I would think it's off to the PS for Peterman.

[Rocky Landing]

1 hour ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

None of those factors will determine whether Allen starts.  The team will not "protect" him due to any perceived positional deficiencies on offense.  He'll either start or not based on the merits of his own readiness.

This may just be getting into semantics, but one has to believe that they are assessing his readiness to lead the offense they have. It would be a lot easier to call Allen "ready" with a stable of decent WRs, and an O-line that can effectively protect him. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

4 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

This may just be getting into semantics, but one has to believe that they are assessing his readiness to lead the offense they have. It would be a lot easier to call Allen "ready" with a stable of decent WRs, and an O-line that can effectively protect him. 

 

...ok, so I'm gonna make you the Big Dawg for a moment (don't shoot! it's a hypothetical)......IF in your judgement a BIG question mark remains about the OL and WR corps being "ready", would you start Allen, hopefully your franchise QB or start McCarron/Peterman, and I am NOT implying that either are expendable "guinea pigs" for target practice....you're "on the clock"....

[26CornerBlitz]

8 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

This may just be getting into semantics, but one has to believe that they are assessing his readiness to lead the offense they have. It would be a lot easier to call Allen "ready" with a stable of decent WRs, and an O-line that can effectively protect him. 

 

They are evaluation his readiness irrespective of the OL and WR corps ber the GM.  That's not semantics. 

[Rocky Landing]

26 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...ok, so I'm gonna make you the Big Dawg for a moment (don't shoot! it's a hypothetical)......IF in your judgement a BIG question mark remains about the OL and WR corps being "ready", would you start Allen, hopefully your franchise QB or start McCarron/Peterman, and I am NOT implying that either are expendable "guinea pigs" for target practice....you're "on the clock"....

I think we'll see this in preseason.

Personally, I am of the opinion that rookie QBs can both benefit by sitting behind a vet, and be damaged by being started too soon in a situation where they are likely to fail. I know that this is a subject of debate on this board. (If Peterman is able to bounce back from an historically bad rookie outing, for example, that speaks well of his mental fortitude. Such a situation can really damage a player's confidence, IMO)

We know that McCarron is used to playing NFL football behind a crappy O-line-- he did it in Cincy. IMO, if McC, and Allen are more or less even, and the O-line has not gelled, then I would hope they start McC. And, I don't think that I agree with 26CB that McD's comments about Allen's readiness are completely separate from the rest of the team's readiness (although, 26CB certainly does follow these things much more closely than me). I think that Allen's readiness should, and would be evaluated vis a vis the situation he is in, which definitely does include the O-line's ability to protect him, and the WRs ability to handle the velocity, and accuracy of his throws.

And, I think these evaluations are looked at differently for McCarron than they are for Allen.

Edited August 5, 2018 by Rocky Landing

[26CornerBlitz]

On 7/29/2018 at 6:54 PM, 26CornerBlitz said:

Bills GM: First preseason game could be pivotal for rookie QB Josh Allen

PITTSFORD, N.Y. – The Buffalo Bills’ first preseason game could serve as a Year 1 crossroads of sorts for rookie quarterback Josh Allen.

 

Buffalo Bills GM Brandon Beane told Postmedia on Sunday that the number of reps Allen gets in training camp thereafter could rise or fall, depending on his performance in that game against the Carolina Panthers a week from Thursday night, Aug. 9.

 

Allen, the cannon-armed No. 7 overall draft pick from the University of Wyoming, is battling fifth-year A.J. McCarron and second-year Nathan Peterman for the starter’s job.

 

The offensive line took a hit in the off-season. Will that impact the decision as to who will start at quarterback in Week 1?

 

BEANE: “No. The line is its own entity. And again, we’ve got to put the best quarterback out there who helps us win each week. That will be our motto throughout the year. Hopefully the starter we pick for Week 1 starts throughout the year and does a great job, stays healthy and we don’t have to switch. But, you know, obviously things can change so we’ll take it a week at a time.”

 

6 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

I think we'll see this in preseason.

Personally, I am of the opinion that rookie QBs can both benefit by sitting behind a vet, and be damaged by being started too soon in a situation where they are likely to fail. I know that this is a subject of debate on this board. (If Peterman is able to bounce back from an historically bad rookie outing, for example, that speaks well of his mental fortitude. Such a situation can really damage a player's confidence, IMO)

We know that McCarron is used to playing NFL football behind a crappy O-line-- he did it in Cincy. IMO, if McC, and Allen are more or less even, and the O-line has not gelled, then I would hope they start McC. And, I don't think that I agree with 26CB that McD's comments about Allen's readiness are completely separate from the rest of the team's readiness (although, 26CB certainly does follow these things much more closely than me). I think that Allen's readiness should, and would be evaluated vis a vis the situation he is in, which definitely does include the O-line's ability to protect him, and the WRs ability to handle the velocity, and accuracy of his throws.

And, I think these evaluations are looked at differently for McCarron than they are for Allen.

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

30 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

I think we'll see this in preseason.

Personally, I am of the opinion that rookie QBs can both benefit by sitting behind a vet, and be damaged by being started too soon in a situation where they are likely to fail. I know that this is a subject of debate on this board. (If Peterman is able to bounce back from an historically bad rookie outing, for example, that speaks well of his mental fortitude. Such a situation can really damage a player's confidence, IMO)

We know that McCarron is used to playing NFL football behind a crappy O-line-- he did it in Cincy. IMO, if McC, and Allen are more or less even, and the O-line has not gelled, then I would hope they start McC. And, I don't think that I agree with 26CB that McD's comments about Allen's readiness are completely separate from the rest of the team's readiness (although, 26CB certainly does follow these things much more closely than me). I think that Allen's readiness should, and would be evaluated vis a vis the situation he is in, which definitely does include the O-line's ability to protect him, and the WRs ability to handle the velocity, and accuracy of his throws.

And, I think these evaluations are looked at differently for McCarron than they are for Allen.

 

 

...nice assessment...thank you for sharing...

[Rocky Landing]

30 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

The offensive line took a hit in the off-season. Will that impact the decision as to who will start at quarterback in Week 1?

 

BEANE: “No. The line is its own entity. And again, we’ve got to put the best quarterback out there who helps us win each week. That will be our motto throughout the year. Hopefully the starter we pick for Week 1 starts throughout the year and does a great job, stays healthy and we don’t have to switch. But, you know, obviously things can change so we’ll take it a week at a time.”

 

 

Like I said: You pay a lot more attention to this minutia than I do, and many of us rely on you for these insights. 

 

Still- it's an odd statement from Beane. The very next sentence from the one you bolded: "...we’ve got to put the best quarterback out there who helps us win each week," almost contradicts his own point. "No. The line is its own entity." Is it really? Ever? If Allen is not able to perform without adequate protection from the O-line, then of course that impacts their decision. But, the clarification I would want from Beane at that point is are they going to evaluate Allen under the same lens they evaluate McCarron and Peterman vis a vis the rest of the offense? Beane seems to be suggesting they are, which might seem to contrast McDermott's approach. And, for that matter, aren't these questions more apt for McDermott?

[major]

Peterman after Chargers game

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 hours ago, Rocky Landing said:

I think we'll see this in preseason.

Personally, I am of the opinion that rookie QBs can both benefit by sitting behind a vet, and be damaged by being started too soon in a situation where they are likely to fail. I know that this is a subject of debate on this board. (If Peterman is able to bounce back from an historically bad rookie outing, for example, that speaks well of his mental fortitude. Such a situation can really damage a player's confidence, IMO)

We know that McCarron is used to playing NFL football behind a crappy O-line-- he did it in Cincy. IMO, if McC, and Allen are more or less even, and the O-line has not gelled, then I would hope they start McC. And, I don't think that I agree with 26CB that McD's comments about Allen's readiness are completely separate from the rest of the team's readiness (although, 26CB certainly does follow these things much more closely than me). I think that Allen's readiness should, and would be evaluated vis a vis the situation he is in, which definitely does include the O-line's ability to protect him, and the WRs ability to handle the velocity, and accuracy of his throws.

And, I think these evaluations are looked at differently for McCarron than they are for Allen.

 

Good assessment.  (of course, I agree with you on the rookie QB debate, which is why I think it's good)

 

Nit: I felt in 2015 when McCarron got most of his starts with Cincy. their line was actually decent (eyeball test).  Stats, they were like 8th in the league for sacks and distinctly average for YPA rushing (backs up eyeball test).    They drafted a RT who didn't really work out in 2016, but the line really went to crap last season when their left tackle left for the Rams and they moved their "meh" 2nd year RT to LT.

 

I don't think it's the crap OL that says "start McCarron" so much as the fact that Allen is still clearly "in progress" on fixing his mechanics and on learning to read/recognize NFL D's.

[BurpleBull]

On 7/28/2018 at 11:43 AM, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

On 7/28/2018 at 2:13 PM, BurpleBull said:

Peterman's "buzz" has died down, so it's pretty much the reverse of how things began.

 

The expectations for Josh Allen were heightened entering minicamp, but it was Peterman who came on strong and at minicamp's end it was him making headlines.

 

 

The expectations from taking an increased amount of 1st team reps in minicamp has heightened the expectations of Peterman entering training camp and he hasn't met those expectations early on.

 

Keep in mind though that Peterman found his rhythm as minicamp progressed, this is just Day 3 of training camp.

 

 

Just because Peterman may seem to be losing favor at the moment doesn't mean Peterman's story is at its end.

 

Furthermore, it's been my belief that Peterman makes his strongest impression in preseason when things get a bit more real.

 

This is where I believe an improved Peterman who shows the ability to keep the offense on the field and moving shines through.

 

I still do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by BurpleBull

[BurpleBull]

On 8/3/2018 at 4:10 PM, Kirby Jackson said:

I 100% believe that. I have no idea when Allen will be ready though. It could be week 1 and it could be next year. I don’t think Peterman or McCarron have any impact on Allen. 

 

Understood.

 

Nonetheless, I'm left to assume that when you presented the idea of a wager, it was under the assumption that Josh Allen would be regarded by coaches as the QB best suited--- between himself and Peterman, if not of all three ---to be taking snaps under center on opening day.

 

Stated it before, and I hold to the belief that the QB battle will likely come down to Peterman and McCarron.

 

 

 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, BurpleBull said:

 

Understood.

 

Nonetheless, I'm left to assume that when you presented the idea of a wager, it was under the assumption that Josh Allen would be regarded by coaches as the QB best suited--- between himself and Peterman, if not of all three ---to be taking snaps under center on opening day.

 

Stated it before, and I hold to the belief that the QB battle will likely come down to Peterman and McCarron.

 

 

 

 

No, I didn’t believe that. I thought that it would be either McCarron or Allen. I presented the wager because I thought (and still think) Allen’s chances of starting were greater than Peterman’s.

 

I don’t believe that this is a QB battle. I believe that McCarron (or Peterman) may start for a little while. This whole QB question though is “when is it time for Allen?” These guys are competing to maybe play 1 week, 4 weeks, 8 weeks and at MAXIMUM 1 season. Who starts opening day has very little to no impact on the Bills moving forward (unless it is Allen). It is like Mike Glennon’s Bears’ career. A year ago I’m sure Bears fans were going though exactly what we are now. It turned out to be totally irrelevant. 

Edited August 6, 2018 by Kirby Jackson

[Radar]

Frankly I'm not going to be shocked if Peterman is holding a clipboard or not even on the team.

[BurpleBull]

On 7/31/2018 at 8:30 AM, GunnerBill said:

 

I think that is correct. But part of that is also I think by design.  They WANT Allen to get a lot of playing time (probably the whole 2nd half) in the 1st pre-season game against 3rd stringers in the hope he has some success and it is a confidence builder.  After that 1st game Allen will be "released" from his position anchored at the 3rd spot and it will then be a depth chart based purely on performance.  Then Peterman will find himself 3rd.  

 

 

Sounds about right.

 

Except for the ending part about Peterman...

 

Allen plays admirably, gets released from his 3rd QB station, and then Peterman gets thrown into the dungeon for all of eternity. Geez. Lol

[BurpleBull]

Peterman heats up on Monday

Nathan Peterman isn’t going down without a fight in the Buffalo Bills’ starting quarterback competition.

 

The second-year signal-caller had, arguably, his best day of training camp here Monday morning, finding receivers in both 11-on-11 and 7-on-7 work. Peterman started the day getting the first crack with the first-team offense. A.J. McCarron had taken the lead-role in three out of the four previous practices, but Monday was Peterman’s shot and he made the most of it.

 

Peterman got the bulk of the work with the ones, McCarron with the twos, and rookie Josh Allen was with the third team. It was the third practice in a row that Allen did not take any reps with the starting offense.

[BurpleBull]

20 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

No, I didn’t believe that. I thought that it would be either McCarron or Allen. I presented the wager because I thought (and still think) Allen’s chances of starting were greater than Peterman’s.

 

I don’t believe that this is a QB battle. I believe that McCarron (or Peterman) may start for a little while. This whole QB question though is “when is it time for Allen?” These guys are competing to maybe play 1 week, 4 weeks, 8 weeks and at MAXIMUM 1 season. Who starts opening day has very little to no impact on the Bills moving forward (unless it is Allen). It is like Mike Glennon’s Bears’ career. A year ago I’m sure Bears fans were going though exactly what we are now. It turned out to be totally irrelevant. 

 

21 hours ago, BurpleBull said:

 

Understood.

 

Nonetheless, I'm left to assume that when you presented the idea of a wager, it was under the assumption that Josh Allen would be regarded by coaches as the QB best suited--- between himself and Peterman, if not of all three ---to be taking snaps under center on opening day.

 

Stated it before, and I hold to the belief that the QB battle will likely come down to Peterman and McCarron.

 

 

 

 

 

This a validation of my assumption, isn't it?

[Mat68]

Peterman starting week 1 makes me throw up in my mouth.  

[Kirby Jackson]

18 minutes ago, BurpleBull said:

 

 

This a validation of my assumption, isn't it?

Not at all. We took AJ McCarron off the table so it was basically a bet of Peterman vs. Allen. I thought (and still think) that Allen is the more likely of those 2 to start. I wouldn’t have bet anyone at even money against McCarron because it would have been a coin flip at best IMO. When he was removed from the equation I liked my chances.

[BurpleBull]

24 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Not at all. We took AJ McCarron off the table so it was basically a bet of Peterman vs. Allen. I thought (and still think) that Allen is the more likely of those 2 to start. I wouldn’t have bet anyone at even money against McCarron because it would have been a coin flip at best IMO. When he was removed from the equation I liked my chances.

 

I guess.

 

 Either way, I would have a hard time believing that the 'chance of Allen starting over Peterman' percentages haven't decreased on this board somewhat.

 

There are realities that I think people are simply choosing to disregard, because they became so enamored with Allen's powerful arm once finally accepting him.

Edited August 7, 2018 by BurpleBull

[Kirby Jackson]

2 minutes ago, BurpleBull said:

 

I guess.

 

 Either way, I would have a hard time believing that the 'chance of Allen starting over Peterman' percentages haven't decreased on this board.

 

There are realities that I think people simply chose to disregard, because they became so enamored with Allen's powerful arm once finally accepting him.

The reality is Allen WILL be starting at some point. He will likely have the most starts of any Bills QB this year. They cleared the path for him. I would agree that Peterman’s chances of starting are better than they were. I wouldn’t say that they are good. The reality is that the Bills have 2 bad QBs and a young guy with a high ceiling and low floor. This isn’t unintentional. The Bills didn’t want to stunt Allen’s development by keeping Tyrod or even signing someone like McCown that is okay. They wanted his path to be clear. It is. It just may not be on opening day.

[CommonCents]

Worth mentioning it’s easier to bench the veteran and go to the rookie. If Allen starts the season and plays poorly it could shake his confidence a bit if the team needs to bench him. I’m not for coddling the QB but I could see why they might trot out Peterman/AJM for a few weeks.

[BurpleBull]

15 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

The reality is Allen WILL be starting at some point. He will likely have the most starts of any Bills QB this year. They cleared the path for him. I would agree that Peterman’s chances of starting are better than they were. I wouldn’t say that they are good. The reality is that the Bills have 2 bad QBs and a young guy with a high ceiling and low floor. This isn’t unintentional. The Bills didn’t want to stunt Allen’s development by keeping Tyrod or even signing someone like McCown that is okay. They wanted his path to be clear. It is. It just may not be on opening day.

 

At what point did McCarron become a bad QB for sure?

 

How do you know that Peterman is most certainly a bad QB?

[Kirby Jackson]

7 minutes ago, BurpleBull said:

 

At what point did McCarron become a bad QB for sure?

 

How do you know that Peterman is most certainly a bad QB?

Neither has been good when given the chance and both lack the physical tools to become GOOD NFL QBs. Their ceilings are no higher than a guy like McCown. There is a reason that one guy was passed on 190 times in the draft and the other signed for 1/2 of what McCown got. That’s who they are. The league knows that. Their camp performances have done nothing to change that.

[BurpleBull]

44 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Neither has been good when given the chance and both lack the physical tools to become GOOD NFL QBs. Their ceilings are no higher than a guy like McCown. There is a reason that one guy was passed on 190 times in the draft and the other signed for 1/2 of what McCown got. That’s who they are. The league knows that. Their camp performances have done nothing to change that.

 

If neither player---one being a second-year player---has made his case for this upcoming season before the entire league, then how would any opinions be changed?

 

Furthermore, how do you figure that you even speak for the entire league?

 

If you're going to apply the very first part of your first sentence fairly, knowing the time it can take for NFL players to shape out given the learning curve, then you know McCarron could be the only QB of the three that the book could be closed on.

 

He's been in the league longer than Peterman, was eight passes shy of tying Peterman's total career reg. season passing attempts (49) in one game, and has thrown three times as many pass attempts as Peterman overall.

 

I'm surprised you would even use where a player was draft as an indictment against them.

 

You had Romo go undrafted, Marques Colston drafted in the 7th rd, Brady and Bulger drafted in the 6th. rd, and a nightmare for Bills' defenders just a few seasons back, Jay Ajayi, fall to the 5th rd. before being selected.

 

Also Peterman was drafted 171st not 191st...ceiling to be determined.

 

 

 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

2 hours ago, BurpleBull said:

 

If neither player---one being a second-year player---has made his case for this upcoming season before the entire league, then how would any opinions be changed?

 

Furthermore, how do you figure that you even speak for the entire league?

 

If you're going to apply the very first part of your first sentence fairly, knowing the time it can take for NFL players to shape out given the learning curve, then you know McCarron could be the only QB of the three that the book could be closed on.

 

He's been in the league longer than Peterman, was eight passes shy of tying Peterman's total career reg. season passing attempts (49) in one game, and has thrown three times as many pass attempts as Peterman overall.

 

I'm surprised you would even use where a player was draft as an indictment against them.

 

You had Romo go undrafted, Marques Colston drafted in the 7th rd, Brady and Bulger drafted in the 6th. rd, and a nightmare for Bills' defenders just a few seasons back, Jay Ajayi, fall to the 5th rd. before being selected.

 

Also Peterman was drafted 171st not 191st...ceiling to be determined.

 

 

 

 

Of the 102 guys drafted between rounds 5-7 from 2001-now Tyrod Taylor is the top QB and Fitz is next. I don’t know why it is reasonable to expect BOTH of these guys to surpass that level of play? There is a less than 1% chance that they will be better QBs than Tyrod who we are all in agreement wasn’t the long term answer. We came to that conclusion on Fitz a few years earlier. 

 

Everytime we do this hamster wheel I ask myself if I am the crazy one? Why do people always believe that their guy will be in the top .98%? That’s not realistic. Bruce Gradkowski is in the top 7% of guys drafted in those rounds. The stats say that there is a 93% chance that they won’t achieve that level of success!!  It’s baffling that I am the one that has to support the argument when there is a 93% chance that they won’t be Gradkowski. Why are they different from the overwhelming majority of their peers? The odds and stats so far wouldn’t support that.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Kirby Jackson

[prissythecat]

40 minutes ago, BurpleBull said:

 

If neither player---one being a second-year player---has made his case for this upcoming season before the entire league, then how would any opinions be changed?

 

Furthermore, how do you figure that you even speak for the entire league?

 

If you're going to apply the very first part of your first sentence fairly, knowing the time it can take for NFL players to shape out given the learning curve, then you know McCarron could be the only QB of the three that the book could be closed on.

 

He's been in the league longer than Peterman, was eight passes shy of tying Peterman's total career reg. season passing attempts (49) in one game, and has thrown three times as many pass attempts as Peterman overall.

 

I'm surprised you would even use where a player was draft as an indictment against them.

 

You had Romo go undrafted, Marques Colston drafted in the 7th rd, Brady and Bulger drafted in the 6th. rd, and a nightmare for Bills' defenders just a few seasons back, Jay Ajayi, fall to the 5th rd. before being selected.

 

Also Peterman was drafted 171st not 191st...ceiling to be determined.

 

 

 

 

 

You are equating Peterman's ceiling to  Brady,  Bulger ,  Tony Romo...?  Seems far fetched.

[BurpleBull]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Of the 102 guys drafted between rounds 5-7 from 2001-now Tyrod Taylor is the top QB and Fitz is next. I don’t know why it is reasonable to expect BOTH of these guys to surpass that level of play? There is a less than 1% chance that they will be better QBs than Tyrod who we are all in agreement wasn’t the long term answer. We came to that conclusion on Fitz a few years earlier. 

 

Everytime we do this hamster wheel I ask myself if I am the crazy one? Why do people always believe that their guy will be in the top .98%? That’s not realistic. Bruce Gradkowski is in the top 7% of guys drafted in those rounds. The stats say that there is a 93% chance that they won’t achieve that level of success!!  It’s baffling that I am the one that has to support the argument when there is a 93% chance that they won’t be Gradkowski. Why are the different from the overwhelming majority of their peers? The odds and stats so far wouldn’t support that.

 

The discussion was never about any of the three Bills' QBs long-term potential, the discussion has always been about opening day starter.

 

You never gave a hint that your mention of Peterman's draft selection, being passed on several times, was done solely with other QBs in mind, and I used non-QBs as examples because of that.

 

You suggested that where a player is drafted almost certainly defines him and his potential: 

 

 "There is a reason that one guy was passed on 190 times in the draft" .

 

So what's the reason Dak Prescott, a Pro-Bowler, was passed on 134 times and a non-Pro-Bowler, but highly thought of second-year player in Matt Milano was passed on 162 times before being drafted?

 

 

 

 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

58 minutes ago, BurpleBull said:

 

The discussion was never about any of the three Bills' QBs long-term potential, the discussion has always been about opening day starter.

 

You never gave a hint that your mention of Peterman's draft selection, being passed on several times, was done solely with other QBs in mind, and I used non-QBs as examples because of that.

 

You suggested that where a player is drafted almost certainly defines him and his potential: 

 

 "There is a reason that one guy was passed on 190 times in the draft" .

 

So what's the reason Dak Prescott, a Pro-Bowler, was passed on 134 times and a non-Pro-Bowler, but highly thought of second-year player in Matt Milano was passed on 162 times before being drafted?

 

 

 

 

 

Again, we can always cherry pick the top guys. That’s the point!! For every Tom Brady there are 102 Keith Wennings. We sure say “well look at Tom Brady” more than we do “well look at Keith Wenning.” Statistically, these guys are WAY more likely to be Wenning than they are to even be Gradkowski.

 

Yes, we are talking about opening day starters. I think it is reasonable that any of the 3 could get that job. That doesn’t make the other 2 good. You asked “how do you know they aren’t good?” I guess that I should have responded with “how do you know that they are good?” The reality is that we don’t either way but they are way more likely to fail than succeed. There are mounds of evidence to support this.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Kirby Jackson