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

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

17 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

He was having an affair with Nasty Nates's mom? 

 

...he wanted to go to the Jets to follow in his idol's footsteps, Wrecks Ryan......

[Boca BIlls]

2 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

This is why things go south.   

 

If this were true mcdermott would have moved on and given Allen the 2s.  

 

Not really things don't matter until training camp, right now it is about learning the playbook.

[BurpleBull]

6 hours ago, Stank_Nasty said:

-The old qb played fine against Oakland. It was a nasty rainy day and the run game was humming. He did just fine managing that ball game and extending a couple big plays. Namely the 2nd and 20 to Tate and the td to Holmes. 

 

-he wasn’t benched after the jets game.

 

-Zay Jones caught his first td before peterman ever started the SD debacle

 

- how the hell does peterman being inserted have anything to do with the defense buckling down the rest of the season?

 

- And I learned some things about peterman that game but it wasn’t anything close to how you mention it in your first point. 

 

That whole post..... it’s all just so bad and inaccurate. 

 

Not terrible, or even bad, but inaccurate in areas...I have no problem admitting that. 

 

That was the first post in this thread where I've really gone stat-chasing. Did so last minute to bring out a few points to address the poster before having to step out for work...hence the very late response.

 

Missed a few things like Zay's first TD and the Saints game that preceded the benching.

 

However, I still greatly believe that losing to the Jets was the real catalyst for McDermott's decision; Rivalry game, chance to make some noise in the standings, and the Bills lose to a struggling Jets team, with Tyrod Taylor being bottled up by its defense which tallied 7 sacks in the process.

 

The Saints performance sealed Taylor's fate heading into the following week I think.

 

As for Zay Jones, he had his best receiving yards game versus the Chargers, showing his big-play potential, with a somewhat more aggressive Taylor entering that game late and Taylor seemed to make a concerted effort to get Jones the ball targeting him a season-high 10 times the next game, one going for his 2nd TD of the season.

 

Don't know how I forgot about the Saints game beatdown, but if the Bills don't get "thwapped and kapowed" in consecutive games then I'm not sure the defense says "something's gotta give".

 

If the Bills don't get walloped by the Chargers in embarrassing fashion, but instead hold them to twenty-three points, do they have the same laser focus to shut down the high-powered Kansas City Chiefs offense or do they get complacent and get rolled over by a much scarier Chiefs offense?

 

Who knows.

 

I'm just saying good seemed to follow a dreadful game on defensive side of the ball and the momentum seemed to carry on as the season went on.

 

McDermott made his decision, stood by it, and admitted it didn't play out as hoped.

 

Peterman had his moment of infamy in which many feel he was thrown to the wolves too early and he's shining thus far in the off-season.

 

I too am entitled to at least one, wildly inaccurate, stat-filled, rush-job of a post. Lol

[Marv's Neighbor]

I don't live in a state where betting is legal, but I think I would bet against that.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, Boca BIlls said:

Not really things don't matter until training camp, right now it is about learning the playbook.

Point in fact. 

 

They are all learning the Dabol playbook.  

 

[Rocky Landing]

8 hours ago, BurpleBull said:

 

You'd be asking one to speculate by asking that question.

 

No one knows if things play out the exact same way in that Chargers game if Tyrod Taylor plays the whole way through, so it's really not that fair a question to ask.

 

All that can be spoken on is what actually happened, what seemingly changed due to Taylor being benched.

 

We all gotta remember why Taylor was benched in the first place and for the record I was very much in favor of the benching for Nathan Peterman as starter.

 

Do you remember the game against Oakland?

 

I don't think many people thought the Bills would roll into Oakland and totally shut them down despite what the records showed, but the Bills did.

 

Fast forward to the next week's game vs. NYJ, a team stumbling around trying to fight its footing, no one expected the Bills to lose that game to a 3-5 team, division rival or not, based on what they did to the Raiders the previous week, but they did.

 

Instead of improving to 6-2 and moving up the standings against a 3-5 division rival, they dropped the ball, and a highly indecisive Taylor was sacked a season-high 7 times.

 

Hence the decision to give Peterman the nod at QB the following week.

 

I really never understood why so many seemed baffled by the move, unless those confused by the move were outsiders who didn't actually follow the Bills, since the coaches and fans had grown tired of the passive, passing attack led by Taylor.

 

Things didn't work out for Peterman in his first start against a scary Chargers pass-rush as hoped for obviously, but still enough good seemed to come out that very bad game.

 

1. Bills' fans found out that they had a young, decisive QB in Peterman, willing to put the ball in the air to make a play for the offense.

 

2. The defense buckled down to shut down a high-powered Kansas City Chiefs offense on the road for a win, after the 54-point romping and never allowed twenty points in 4 of the final 6 games after allowing 88 points in the span of two weeks, 34 coming by way of the hapless, Jets offense. 

 

I don't know if anything changes if Tyrod Taylor is never benched and Nathan Peterman never starts, but I know things didn't remain the same after he was.

 

Zay Jones even messed around and caught his first NFL TD.

 

How about that.

There's a lot wrong with this post, but the bolded blows me away.

What game did you watch? Decisive??? What I saw on that field (and I was there, 10th row) was confusion.

[BurpleBull]

52 minutes ago, Rocky Landing said:

There's a lot wrong with this post, but the bolded blows me away.

What game did you watch? Decisive??? What I saw on that field (and I was there, 10th row) was confusion.

 

I acknowledged that the post was flawed and I addressed the errors, but Peterman didn't strike me as tentative in that game. He wasn't hesitant, he knew where he wanted to go with the ball. There were instances where lack of pass protection affected his throws, there were instances that appeared to be miscommunication between QB and WR and then you had a bad decision or a pass that was a tad late getting to where it needed to be from Peterman. 

 

When I think of indecisiveness, I think back to the second Bills-Jets game, the game that I feel kicked off McDermott's waning confidence in Taylor.

 

[Lfod]

9 hours ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Tyrod was the best quarterback we had. Maybe he wasn't good enough. But he was the best option, there's no rock and hard place. There's "our best chance of winning" and "not as good chance, maybe it happens, maybe we have one of the worst QB records ever who knows!"

SO WHY START PETERMAN. Why does Tyrod not get these excuses but we can keep saying poor Peterman had an unfair shake at things. Same offense.

In hindsight I absolutely agree that Tyrod was the best QB we had at the time. I'm not convinced anybody we have will be better either.   

 

I'll just have to admit that I had absolutely no clue Petermans debut was going to be that bad. I had to see it for myself and I'm  still glad I did. I didn't have very high expectation but my expectations were a bit higher then what I got.

 

I think we agree at the time that what was going on wasn't working very well. We only disagree about the choice made. You would have played it safe and stuck with Tyrod and you were correct in that mindset.

 

I would have took the risk at the small chance Peterman could be better and I was wrong. It was good enough for you and not good enough for me. I can respect it. 

 

As for excuses my dad always used to say they are like buttholes, everyone has one. I'll just say I expect a seasoned vet to be light-years ahead of a rookie during his first year. It could of been that working with an inadequate OC on a talented starved offence effected both Tyrod and Peterman, or maybe they both sucked.

 

 They both have room to grow. One guy has had more time for that growth. That's real talk. Saying that Peterman hasn't had the time to acclimate himself into the league that Tyrod has had doesn't mean he will. It's just a fact. He has not had the years of grooming and the years of starting experience. That's fact. If I just start a job you been at 5+ years what you think the chances are I will start out performing you my first few tries? Very slim. 

 

 Why start Peterman? We had a HC with the stones to make that gamble. When you gamble you might win and you most likely will lose. I guess the brass felt it was worth the gamble. That is history now. 

 

We will see how it works out. Both QBs can prove themselves. I'm not convinced yet that it will happen for either of them but I will keep an open mind even if I have my preconceived notion on how it will turn out. 

 

I'm not saying you are wrong feeling benching Tyrod was the wrong choice. I'm just saying I would roll the dice to be better even if it cost me a few steps. When you first take the training wheels off a bike you probably will crash. It's a risk you take when learning to ride. You can keep them training wheels on your whole life but it's limiting yourself. 

Edited June 17, 2018 by Lfod

[billsredneck1]

7 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

He was having an affair with Nasty Nates's mom? 

don't quit your day job. your opinions don't reflect that of someone who has worked for 2 nfl teams....

[Augie]

31 minutes ago, Lfod said:

In hindsight I absolutely agree that Tyrod was the best QB we had at the time. I'm not convinced anybody we have will be better either.   

 

I'll just have to admit that I had absolutely no clue Petermans debut was going to be that bad. I had to see it for myself and I'm  still glad I did. I didn't have very high expectation but my expectations were a bit higher then what I got.

 

I think we agree at the time that what was going on wasn't working very well. We only disagree about the choice made. You would have played it safe and stuck with Tyrod and you were correct in that mindset.

 

I would have took the risk at the small chance Peterman could be better and I was wrong. It was good enough for you and not good enough for me. I can respect it. 

 

As for excuses my dad always used to say they are like buttholes, everyone has one. I'll just say I expect a seasoned vet to be light-years ahead of a rookie during his first year. It could of been that working with an inadequate OC on a talented starved offence effected both Tyrod and Peterman, or maybe they both sucked.

 

 They both have room to grow. One guy has had more time for that growth. That's real talk. Saying that Peterman hasn't had the time to acclimate himself into the league that Tyrod has had doesn't mean he will. It's just a fact. He has not had the years of grooming and the years of starting experience. That's fact. If I just start a job you been at 5+ years what you think the chances are I will start out performing you my first few tries? Very slim. 

 

 Why start Peterman? We had a HC with the stones to make that gamble. When you gamble you might win and you most likely will lose. I guess the brass felt it was worth the gamble. That is history now. 

 

We will see how it works out. Both QBs can prove themselves. I'm not convinced yet that it will happen for either of them but I will keep an open mind even if I have my preconceived notion on how it will turn out. 

 

Nothing personal, but you seem determined to ignore the depth of the situation. It’s a bit more complicated than what I think you describe. As Kirby explained a while ago (and I consider that info very reliable), there were a number of factors. Yes, it’s ultimately on McD, but he was appeasing Dennison. McD did this reluctantly and under pressure. It makes me feel better about McD that he took the heat publicly, but apologized to the team. That type of thing earns internal trust. 

 

I may have missed where you commented or even acknowledged those comments. If so, I apologize. 

20 hours ago, Lfod said:

If that's true then why isn't Tyrod still with the Bills? Why is Peterman getting reps? I mean things were going downhill before Peterman started. Not that I disagree that Dennison was in on it. Just not to the degree that McDermott was blind and didn't see the stuff on film. It wasn't like the guy being foolishly persuaded in my opinion. 

 

I think McDermott was a guy that was going off more then just Dennisons word when it came to benching Tyrod. I think we all seen the offence was kinda terrible. 

 

See above. 

 

 

Honestly not trying to be a jerk or rub it in, but I think I can see how this went down. 

11 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Yeah, he was taking some heat for the offense’s regression. They were a top 10 scoring offense 2 straight years and then fell flat. He believed that it was because Tyrod wasn’t equipped to run his offense (which he wasn’t). Dennison felt that Peterman would deliver the ball on time and was more suited to run the west coast offense.

 

When it failed that was basically the nail in Dennison’s coffin. Anybody though that makes players fit their system instead of making their system fit the players is destined to fail. I’m encouraged by Daboll’s strong belief that you play to your strengths and to an opponents weakness.

 

FWIW, and I don’t know if I should be sharing this McDermott actually apologized to the team about it after. I actually thought that McDermott showed great leadership in that situation. He took the bullet publicly and held himself accountable to the team. 

 

Thank you Kirby for saying all that really needs to be said on this topic. I think this is probably the most fair and accurate description of what went down. 

Edited June 17, 2018 by Augie

[Bing Bong]

24 minutes ago, Lfod said:

I'll just say I expect a seasoned vet to be light-years ahead of a rookie during his first year. It could of been that working with an inadequate OC on a talented starved offence effected both Tyrod and Peterman, or maybe they both sucked.

I would have been light-years ahead of Peterman if I audibled to a run every play. Not having a passer would have been light years ahead of the QB play that game. So.. yeah Tyrod would have been light-years ahead of Peterman. His Saints game that got him benched was light-years ahead of Peterman.

 

But aside from the snark, there's no rolling the dice. Maybe to us it seems like but the coaches see the damn dice roll every practice, and clearly weren't paying enough attention to practice. Maybe they were too enamored at a few Peterman 7 on 7 drills and did not pay attention to the boys in pads with the red shirt off. Coaches see what they want to see, which I imagine Dennison did.

[Lfod]

25 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Nothing personal, but you seem determined to ignore the depth of the situation. It’s a bit more complicated than what I think you describe. As Kirby explained a while ago (and I consider that info very reliable), there were a number of factors. Yes, it’s ultimately on McD, but he was appeasing Dennison. McD did this reluctantly and under pressure. It makes me feel better about McD that he took the heat publicly, but apologized to the team. That type of thing earns internal trust. 

 

I may have missed where you commented or even acknowledged those comments. If so, I apologize. 

 

See above. 

 

 

Honestly not trying to be a jerk or rub it in, but I think I can see how this went down. 

 

Thank you Kirby for saying all that really needs to be said on this topic. 

Well I can dispute what I don't know. I don't know what happened behind the scenes to influence everything. I wasn't there and I don't know a friend who knew a friend that was. 

 

I do know who was HC of the team at the time. I do know who ultimately had the final call at the end of the day. If I'm struggling with money and you influence to rob a bank at the end of the day I made the final call being in total control. So scapegoats do nothing for me. 

 

If it's true that Dennison manipulated a guy holding higher rank then him with little to no evidence to support his claim and the guy in charge approved the choice unchecked and blind then I think that isn't a good look and I seriously hope a lesson was learned. 

 

I don't know how making Dennison the big bad wolf makes it better. I really don't. 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2018 by Lfod

[Augie]

1 minute ago, Lfod said:

Well I can dispute what I don't know. I don't know what happened behind the scenes to influence everything. I wasn't there and I don't know a friend who knew a friend that was. 

 

I do know who was HC of the team at the time. I do know who ultimately had the final call at the end of the day. If I'm struggling with money and you influence to rob a bank at the end of the day I made the final call being in total control. So scapegoats do nothing for me. 

 

If it's true that Dennison manipulated a guy holding higher rank then him with little to no evidence to support his claim and the guy in charge approved the choice unchecked and blind then I think that isn't a good look and I seriously hope a lesson was learned. 

 

 

 

 

 

I’m certainly not arguing WHAT happened. We all know that. Peterman started, it went horribly sideways to a comical extent, and the HC had to have approved that. It’s not the WHAT, it’s the WHY. It doesn’t make it smell any less putrid, but it puts things in a different perspective. That’s all I’m saying.  

 

I’ve had subordinates push hard on something, and sometimes you give them enough rope to hang themselves (even while praying for the best). This did not turn out for the best. 

[Lfod]

15 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

I’m certainly not arguing WHAT happened. We all know that. Peterman started, it went horribly sideways to a comical extent, and the HC had to have approved that. It’s not the WHAT, it’s the WHY. It doesn’t make it smell any less putrid, but it puts things in a different perspective. That’s all I’m saying.  

 

I’ve had subordinates push hard on something, and sometimes you give them enough rope to hang themselves (even while praying for the best). This did not turn out for the best. 

I'm not upset that Tyrod got benched. I'm not mad that Peterman threw 5 picks and got pulled. I'll never have to wonder what if we started Peterman. I got the answer I was looking for. 

 

I don't care who made the call or who's fault it was because I wanted it badly. My favorite team made the Playoffs. Then the defense did it's job and the offense didn't. Tyrod and Dennison are gone. So I'm getting what I want. Whatever happened last season with that offense has been scrapped and the winds of change are setting it in. The 3 point playoff game is what upset me. I guess different things effect people different. It's life. 

 

I got it early and I am getting it now. All the moves I want are happening. Keep it coming.

Edited June 17, 2018 by Lfod

[Augie]

2 minutes ago, Lfod said:

I'm not upset that Tyrod got benched. I'm not mad that Peterman threw 5 picks and got pulled. I'll never have to wonder what if we started Peterman. I got the answer I was looking for. 

 

I don't care who made the call or who's fault it was because I wanted it badly. My favorite team made the Playoffs. Then the defense did it's job and the offense didn't. Tyrod and Dennison are gone. So I'm getting what I want. Whatever happened last season with that offense has been scrapped and the winds of change are setting it in. 

 

I got it early and I am getting it now. All the moves I want are happening and I'm just a fan. 

 

And now you will FOREVER have the “remember when that dude threw FIVE (5) Picks in a single half”????       ?

[Wily Dog]

I sometimes wonder that " IF " the O'line took a " FEW " plays off , which has been reported , that obviously Peterman suffered for it but McD did not allude to it although it was fairly obvious. It may have something to do with his apologizing  to the team and let sleeping dogs lie. Peterman suffered for it peripherally because of reputation in the public arena and the trolls who wanted TT , no matter that he was going to be gone at the end of the year. Peterman did not suffer with the coach or  GM because they knew what was in play. The linemen  may or may not  have apologized to McD for their transgressions if in fact the "he didn't block me " are true . I would assume that they did in the realm of wanting to be employed.

[Lfod]

12 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

And now you will FOREVER have the “remember when that dude threw FIVE (5) Picks in a single half”????       ?

That and always admit that I was an advocate to see it happen. Wanting something to happen and getting your way makes you feel like a bigger part. So in a strange way I own it like I made the choice.

 

It would feel a lot different if the Bills beat the Jaguars. I would have felt really stupid that Tyrod got benched. I would have a different tone then I do now. 

[Augie]

4 minutes ago, Lfod said:

That and always admit that I was an advocate to see it happen. Wanting something to happen and getting your way makes you feel like a bigger part. So in a strange way I own it like I made the choice.

 

It would feel a lot different if the Bills beat the Jaguars. I would have felt really stupid that Tyrod got benched. I would have a different tone then I do now. 

 

It’s all water under the bridge now. Let’s pray our stable of “three franchise QB’s” has at least ONE franchise QB in it! Find ONE and we have a whole new world before us. 

[Wily Dog]

11 minutes ago, Lfod said:

That and always admit that I was an advocate to see it happen. Wanting something to happen and getting your way makes you feel like a bigger part. So in a strange way I own it like I made the choice.

 

It would feel a lot different if the Bills beat the Jaguars. I would have felt really stupid that Tyrod got benched. I would have a different tone then I do now. 

 

Are you a Bills fan >

[Lfod]

14 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

It’s all water under the bridge now. Let’s pray our stable of “three franchise QB’s” has at least ONE franchise QB in it! Find ONE and we have a whole new world before us. 

A few more first downs and touchdowns last season and nobody is talking about luck or Andy Dalton. So I'm actually optimistic and still holding the get away with a bad season pass I had for McDermott last season just hoping to not cash it in. Last season wasn't bad for me. 

 

7 minutes ago, Wily Dog said:

 

Are you a Bills fan >

If you see how I react to Bills games you would never need to ask. I'm not claiming to be the biggest fan or the most knowledgeable. I think I'm usually good at making sure what I type on here is known as just my amateur opinion. 

Edited June 17, 2018 by Lfod